Actually if you look at it the PacTen would take OU,OSU and Texas tech if Texas came with them. They were all set to do that this summer.
The SEC is willing to take Texas AM, so the question is would the SEC be willing to bring in Baylor to get Texas AM? If the answer is yes then the Texas legislature is placated.

So the BIG question becomes would the SEC take Baylor? and Im not sure that answer is a clear cut NO, with AM in the fold.

(02-01-2011 06:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

Question #1 is backwards: the SEC has to WANT A&M and believe that they're worth it without an OU-caliber school coming along. A&M can't just choose to leave, which is what a lot of people are missing. As I've said, it takes two to tango. Considering that the SEC only sent out invites to A&M and OU as a last resort when it appeared UT was forming the Pac-16 and Nebraska and Notre Dame were heading to a 16-team Big Ten, it was completely a reactionary measure as opposed to a proactive measure. The SEC likes the status quo and would only move if a UT move threatens the conference's dominance.

Question #2: No reason at all. Not a single person has articulated why the political environment has changed from last summer. The Texas legislature has proven over and over again that it will intervene HEAVILY. There are some that blame A&M for screwing up the Pac-16 deal (as they were the ones that had the most reservations with an SEC counter-offer) that would have protected Texas Tech, so there's NFW that the legislature is going to let Tech lose a single penny in conference money by A&M moving to the SEC or anywhere else. None. Nada. Zilch. A&M has to find Texas Tech at the very least (and probably Baylor, too) a deal just as good or better than the Pac-16 deal if it ever wants to move. Leaving behind a Big 12 that would make less money isn't good enough at all - that's NOT what the Texas legislature considers to be "taking care of Tech and Baylor".

That needs to be beaten into people's heads: the Pac-16 deal is the bare minimum for the Texas and Oklahoma schools now. Neither of those states' legislatures are going to let the little brothers get left behind now when there was a deal on the table that would've protected them that the big brothers passed up on.

Frank, don't you think the Texas legislature's attempt to force Baylor into the equation was what killed this deal? There was no way the Pac-10 was ever going to allow a religious school into the mix. That's also why you'll never see BYU in the Pac-12.

USFFan

(02-01-2011 06:58 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Actually if you look at it the PacTen would take OU,OSU and Texas tech if Texas came with them. They were all set to do that this summer.
The SEC is willing to take Texas AM, so the question is would the SEC be willing to bring in Baylor to get Texas AM? If the answer is yes then the Texas legislature is placated.

So the BIG question becomes would the SEC take Baylor? and Im not sure that answer is a clear cut NO, with AM in the fold.

I would be fine with it!

(02-01-2011 06:42 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Target states:
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
West Va/ Missouri

I guess the root of this is that I don't agree with your list of target states. I think the SEC would much rather create a stranglehold on Florida by bringing in FSU instead of worrying about Virginia or West Virginia.

USFFan

(02-01-2011 07:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:42 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Target states:
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
West Va/ Missouri

I guess the root of this is that I don't agree with your list of target states. I think the SEC would much rather create a stranglehold on Florida by bringing in FSU instead of worrying about Virginia or West Virginia.

USFFan

I don't know the ACC payout, so maybe somebody can educate me on it. But what in the world would be FSU's motivation to join the SEC? Don't they have a much clearer path to the BCS in the ACC? I agree the competition would be great, but I don't see the benefit to FSU, UNLESS the money is signifigantly better.

(02-01-2011 07:12 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 07:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:42 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Target states:
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
West Va/ Missouri

I guess the root of this is that I don't agree with your list of target states. I think the SEC would much rather create a stranglehold on Florida by bringing in FSU instead of worrying about Virginia or West Virginia.

USFFan

I don't know the ACC payout, so maybe somebody can educate me on it. But what in the world would be FSU's motivation to join the SEC? Don't they have a much clearer path to the BCS in the ACC? I agree the competition would be great, but I don't see the benefit to FSU, UNLESS the money is signifigantly better.

ACC is 12.9 per school all going through ESPN. Of this Raycom pays ESPN for the tier 3 rights and this comes out make it a de-facto acc network.
Of the 12.9 you have:
8.7 main rights from ESPN
4.2 de-facto network from Raycom

You can almost forget any of the NC 4 breaking off. UNC runs the show here and you can believe that even if NCSU was interested in leaving, they would handcuff them somehow. Besides I can't see UNC leaving duke or ncsu/wf leaving unc so you can I think there is no SEC target in NC. Also UVA considers itself on par with UNC so they would be a hard sell to leave as well. I think the only sec target that would be in NC or VA would be VT.

(02-01-2011 05:51 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 04:11 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  You think UT would be agreeable to a pac-12 if they are able to keep its network in some form.

Its probably plan B if the current setup fails. Pac16 was projected to get anywhere from 18 million to 20 million depending on the bias of the person projecting it with all rights in. UT is assured 20 million AND gets their network so it would be 2-3 million lost most likely when you consider UT could possibly get 24 million due to the appearances on tv dividing up half the B12 money.

I would have to think the 18 million is closer to reality if the Pac allowed the bevo network. Right now politics + ATM not being non-conference + 2 to 3 million + travel + getting outvoted 12 to 4 = stay. Money and exposure was the hook and ESPN removed it. If things change again it could happen but ESPN seems more than happy to bankroll a way for that not to happen.

There was a recent article that suggested that the 20-21 million figure might have been on the low-end. Who knows now.

(02-01-2011 06:58 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Actually if you look at it the PacTen would take OU,OSU and Texas tech if Texas came with them. They were all set to do that this summer.
The SEC is willing to take Texas AM, so the question is would the SEC be willing to bring in Baylor to get Texas AM? If the answer is yes then the Texas legislature is placated.

So the BIG question becomes would the SEC take Baylor? and Im not sure that answer is a clear cut NO, with AM in the fold.

You would think it would be no, but if it opened Texas up to SEC recruiting..maybe? Then everyone is happy..except maybe Texas (they don't the SEC in their backyard), but then they are placated with the longhorn network, getting their olympic athletes on ESPN (And the side benefit of getting many pac-xx athletes also on ESPN).

(02-01-2011 07:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:07 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  If aTm left for the SEC, who else would the SEC pick up to stay even? And why would the Texas legislature allow aTm to do this?

Question #1 is backwards: the SEC has to WANT A&M and believe that they're worth it without an OU-caliber school coming along. A&M can't just choose to leave, which is what a lot of people are missing. As I've said, it takes two to tango. Considering that the SEC only sent out invites to A&M and OU as a last resort when it appeared UT was forming the Pac-16 and Nebraska and Notre Dame were heading to a 16-team Big Ten, it was completely a reactionary measure as opposed to a proactive measure. The SEC likes the status quo and would only move if a UT move threatens the conference's dominance.

Question #2: No reason at all. Not a single person has articulated why the political environment has changed from last summer. The Texas legislature has proven over and over again that it will intervene HEAVILY. There are some that blame A&M for screwing up the Pac-16 deal (as they were the ones that had the most reservations with an SEC counter-offer) that would have protected Texas Tech, so there's NFW that the legislature is going to let Tech lose a single penny in conference money by A&M moving to the SEC or anywhere else. None. Nada. Zilch. A&M has to find Texas Tech at the very least (and probably Baylor, too) a deal just as good or better than the Pac-16 deal if it ever wants to move. Leaving behind a Big 12 that would make less money isn't good enough at all - that's NOT what the Texas legislature considers to be "taking care of Tech and Baylor".

That needs to be beaten into people's heads: the Pac-16 deal is the bare minimum for the Texas and Oklahoma schools now. Neither of those states' legislatures are going to let the little brothers get left behind now when there was a deal on the table that would've protected them that the big brothers passed up on.

Frank, don't you think the Texas legislature's attempt to force Baylor into the equation was what killed this deal? There was no way the Pac-10 was ever going to allow a religious school into the mix. That's also why you'll never see BYU in the Pac-12.

USFFan

I think Baylor has a much better shot in the pac-xx than BYU ever did or ever will, although that ship has sailed now since there are only 4 spots left.

(02-01-2011 07:00 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  I would be fine with it!

everyone is happy with it..lets make the deal.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Clemson. Their brand seems to fit the SEC blueprint.

(02-01-2011 07:12 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 07:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:42 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Target states:
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
West Va/ Missouri

I guess the root of this is that I don't agree with your list of target states. I think the SEC would much rather create a stranglehold on Florida by bringing in FSU instead of worrying about Virginia or West Virginia.

USFFan

I don't know the ACC payout, so maybe somebody can educate me on it. But what in the world would be FSU's motivation to join the SEC? Don't they have a much clearer path to the BCS in the ACC? I agree the competition would be great, but I don't see the benefit to FSU, UNLESS the money is signifigantly better.

Based on this article about BCS football expenses:

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06...ucks-eyes/

and this article about BCS net football income:

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06...-of-trees/

that both use the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics report for the 2008-09 school year for their data and doing the math, here's what you find for total football income:

SEC

Fl*rida $66.15MM
Georgia $65.21MM
Alabama $64.60MM
LSU $61.86MM
Auburn $58.61MM
USC $57.11MM
Tenn. $42.80MM
Ark. $38.63MM
Ky. $26.14MM
MSU $18.73MM
Miss. $18.68MM
Vandy $18.56MM

ACC

Clemson $35.20MM
BC $32.66MM
VT $27.74MM
Miami $27.15MM
FSU $24.87MM
UNC $24.16MM
GT $22.83MM
NC St. $21.77MM
UVa $20.21MM
Md. $13.98MM
WFU $10.34MM
Duke  $ 9.02MM

Clemson, who made the most in the ACC, would rank 9th in the SEC. If FSU were to rank in the middle of the SEC the way it does in the ACC, it would represent more than double the income. Note, that doesn't take into account the new TV contract the SEC signed. Regardless of BCS access, Florida State would be stupid to say no to SEC membership if it were offered.

Notice I said "if"

USFFan

(02-01-2011 08:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  I think Baylor has a much better shot in the pac-xx than BYU ever did or ever will, although that ship has sailed now since there are only 4 spots left.

I'm not sure whether "a snowball's chance in hell" is "much better" than "no freaking way," but if it makes you feel better, sure. I can tell you without a doubt that none of the California schools would vote for the inclusion of a religiously-affiliated school. I've heard those very words uttered from the lips of two different school presidents.

USFFan

(02-01-2011 07:00 PM)usffan Wrote:  Frank, don't you think the Texas legislature's attempt to force Baylor into the equation was what killed this deal? There was no way the Pac-10 was ever going to allow a religious school into the mix. That's also why you'll never see BYU in the Pac-12.

USFFan

Yes, I think Baylor backers killed it, too. This is even more important as point. The Pac-10 was willing to take care everyone except for Baylor, and that deal STILL got killed. There's ZERO reason why the Texas and Oklahoma legislatures are going to let

I guess if the SEC were persuaded to take Baylor, then that would be OK, but why on Earth would the SEC do that? A&M has a large amount of value, but they are not worth adding multiple schools to get them like ND or UT. Instead, A&M needs to come along with a big-time national brand name (i.e. OU or Florida State) in order for it to make sense. The Pac-10 was willing to take on dead weight in order to get the big prize of UT and they were in a position where they had to do something huge to compete with the SEC and Big Ten. The SEC, on the other hand, is already at the top of the food chain and won't expand just for the sake of expanding, so they need every expansion school to bring in maximum value. The SEC would like to be in the Texas market in theory, but not at the expense of (a) providing incentive for UT to move to the Pac-10 again or (b) taking on schools that it doesn't want.

(02-01-2011 09:09 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 08:30 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  I think Baylor has a much better shot in the pac-xx than BYU ever did or ever will, although that ship has sailed now since there are only 4 spots left.

I'm not sure whether "a snowball's chance in hell" is "much better" than "no freaking way," but if it makes you feel better, sure. I can tell you without a doubt that none of the California schools would vote for the inclusion of a religiously-affiliated school. I've heard those very words uttered from the lips of two different school presidents.

USFFan

Agreed. The Pac-10 isn't ever going to invite a religiously-affiliated school.*

*Exception: If Notre Dame says they want to join the Pac-10, then they're in.

(02-01-2011 07:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 06:42 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Target states:
Texas
North Carolina
Virginia
West Va/ Missouri

I guess the root of this is that I don't agree with your list of target states. I think the SEC would much rather create a stranglehold on Florida by bringing in FSU instead of worrying about Virginia or West Virginia.

Perhaps. But if the SEC were thinking of reaching for a bigger piece of the pie, FSU ain't going to give it to them. Inviting WVU would destabilize The BEast far more than the ACC raid did. WVU has finished no worse than 2nd in The BEast since 2002. Removing the Mountaineers from The BEast would seriously weaken the conference's strength. More so than the removal of VT and Miami. Frankly, BC is no great loss, except as a close regional rival...

I could see baylor and or byu make it into an alliance with the pac 10 if texas jammed them through. Of course, i think the pac 16 concept is dead to be replaced by a pac 20 concept like:

pac 20

pacific division: wash, wsu, oreg, osu, cal, stanford, usc, ucla, ariz, asu

central division: texas, tex A&M, tex tech, baylor, ou, osu, ku, col, byu, utah

play a 9-1 rotating football schedule with champ game. All other sports stick to divisions with maybe one cross over series. Yet, you could drop baylor and or byu in favor of ksu, new mexico, boise or missouri so it could be a moot point.

(02-01-2011 07:17 PM)SouthernPirate55 Wrote:  You can almost forget any of the NC 4 breaking off. UNC runs the show here and you can believe that even if NCSU was interested in leaving, they would handcuff them somehow. Besides I can't see UNC leaving duke or ncsu/wf leaving unc so you can I think there is no SEC target in NC. Also UVA considers itself on par with UNC so they would be a hard sell to leave as well. I think the only sec target that would be in NC or VA would be VT.

It goes back to politics again with VT. Consider that the Virginia legislature cashed in virtually every chip that it had with UVA to effectively force them to get VT into the ACC. UVA completely stuck its neck out in an unprecedented manner on that issue. So, how likely is it that Virginia politicians would then let VT go off to make more money in the SEC *and* devalue the ACC revenue of the state's flagship school? I don't see that happening.

That's the thing people have to remember - these schools aren't operating in a vacuum. If A&M or VT move to the SEC, then the conferences they left behind make less money, which in turn means that their in-state brothers make less money. In an era when public higher education funding is getting slashed, that's simply a untenable political position. The headline isn't "A&M is trying to compete with UT" or "VT is bettering itself", but rather "A&M is screwing Tech and Baylor for a few extra football bucks" or "VT is backstabbing UVA, who saved their a*ses in 2003".

The Big 12 is not going anywhere and noone from the Big 12 is going to the SEC. Their is a strong chance the Arkansas switches to the Big 12. Before anyone starts saying the the SEC is the richest and Blah Blah Blah. The Big 12 is going to get paid in its upcoming media contract. The Big 12 needs a championship game and if you think that the Big 12,Jerry Jones,and ESPN aren't going to do everything possible to make this happen. Well your mistaken.