I continue to think about this situation as it is the Big 12 that is most likely to yield the next round of realignment. Having considered all options here is what I am presently thinking.

1. Unless Oklahoma is one of the teams the SEC would add I don't see the need to add anyone from the Big 12. And if Oklahoma comes to the SEC then West Virginia or Kansas should be the one to come with them.

2. The best course of action in my opinion, outside of an Oklahoma addition to the SEC is to refuse to take any of the Big 12 teams forcing the ACC to take multiples if the conference is to be dissolved.

3. Should Texas need a place to move outside of the PAC the ACC seems to me to be the most likely destination, but they won't want to go alone.

4. Given ESPN's third tier interest in Kansas (a move likely designed to thwart Big 10 expansion Southward into Kansas or deeper into the Big 12 then perhaps Kansas is of interest to the ACC as well.

5. The SEC should refrain from taking Big 12 schools in exchange for a decent pod of 4 moving to the ACC. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Kansas would do nicely. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and West Virginia would be fine as well.

6. The cost of remaining out of the ACC's way should be North Carolina State and Virginia Tech. The ACC loses no footprint and gains a Western Pod even if West Virginia is part of the 4 moving to the ACC (Miami shifts to the West).

7. A move to D4 solves two problems for the ACC. New requirements at the D4 level and its structure require ND's full membership. The new requirements also lead to Wake Forest stepping down. With only two N.Carolina schools balance is achieved in the ACC.
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse

East: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma (or Oklahoma State), Texas

8. I also don't see any future moves until after the establishment of D4. Then I believe we will see a somewhat more orderly restructuring into 4 somewhat balanced conferences.

ESPN protects the best Big 12 property and solidifies the SEC's new partnership with the ACC.

I listed an option for Oklahoma State's inclusion. A compromise position might be needed for the PAC (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Iowa State).

No matter how this gets done the future enemy of the ACC will be the Big 10, not the SEC. I can see Swofford making a preemptive move here as the ACC did almost two decades ago with the Big East.

(08-05-2013 07:56 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 04:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2013 10:10 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Ha! We are definitely in Nostradamus territory, JR. I certainly see how the coordination between the P5 commissioners is likely the cog in this wheel. No one will allow the demise of his conference, but I do see a strategy that could make sense for all parties in the long term.

The Big 12 is the most at risk for now for a variety of reasons, and I think that is generally agreed. The only entity more at risk is the NCAA itself as currently constituted. If/when Mark Emmert is replaced, it will need to be with someone who is well qualified, speaks and acts boldly, and would instantly have the seal of approval from the power conference commissioners. As luck would have it, I think the most qualified candidate is the commissioner of the most at risk power conference. I am only suggesting a strategy and certainly not saying that it has been rumored or bandied about in any way, but do you all see such a move as incredibly beneficial to the whole structure? Bowlsby would be an incredible NCAA commissioner, and the transition period would allow the Big 12 to reconfigure (or be reconfigured) without the issue of a respected, sitting commissioner getting the Dan Beebe treatment. Thoughts? As I see it, the four most valuable properties in the Big 12 are Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Bowlsby.

Ha! I didn't even see this post. In a thread in the main forum I came up with the solution for a naysayer that Bowlsby would be the perfect candidate to replace Emmert. The ultimate control of power. Controlling the Division 4 Security Council and having one of your Cartel sitting at the head seat of power. The P5 would never lose control again, ever.


You definitely get credit for being the first one here to think up the concept of Bowlsby receiving that position for going along with this.

I had not caught your same theory on the other board, either. Great minds think alike... or something like that It really does make a lot of sense if the tide turns that way.

He would definitely have to be promised something in order to go along with all this without letting it leak.

If the SEC decides to add membership, a great surprise move would be UCONN

1) Gets the SEC into metro NYC and steals at least some of the Big 10's thunder with the Rutgers addition

2) UCONN despite fieldling a BCS football program did win a BE title(something that Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt havent' done outright and have only shared 1 each in the last 10 years)

3) SEC adds a National Championship Women's Hoops program, the best women's hoops program there is

4) ALso adds a Men's Hoops program that won the National Championship in 2011 and has earned 31 Men's Tourney Hoops Bids tieing with Temple for 11th and bested in the SEC by only Kentucky.

UConn is a great bball program....but I just cant see it. Dont worry, I think you'll eventually get picked up by either the ACC or B1G so you can be with your fellow basketball loving Yankees where you belong!

(08-08-2013 11:52 AM)Poliicious Wrote:  If the SEC decides to add membership, a great surprise move would be UCONN

1) Gets the SEC into metro NYC and steals at least some of the Big 10's thunder with the Rutgers addition

2) UCONN despite fieldling a BCS football program did win a BE title(something that Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt havent' done outright and have only shared 1 each in the last 10 years)

3) SEC adds a National Championship Women's Hoops program, the best women's hoops program there is

4) ALso adds a Men's Hoops program that won the National Championship in 2011 and has earned 31 Men's Tourney Hoops Bids tieing with Temple for 11th and bested in the SEC by only Kentucky.

Help us build a bridge to you by bringing along UNC, UVA, Maryland, Penn State, and Rutgers to join, and you're in!

(08-08-2013 01:05 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:52 AM)Poliicious Wrote:  If the SEC decides to add membership, a great surprise move would be UCONN

1) Gets the SEC into metro NYC and steals at least some of the Big 10's thunder with the Rutgers addition

2) UCONN despite fieldling a BCS football program did win a BE title(something that Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt havent' done outright and have only shared 1 each in the last 10 years)

3) SEC adds a National Championship Women's Hoops program, the best women's hoops program there is

4) ALso adds a Men's Hoops program that won the National Championship in 2011 and has earned 31 Men's Tourney Hoops Bids tieing with Temple for 11th and bested in the SEC by only Kentucky.

Help us build a bridge to you by bringing along UNC, UVA, Maryland, Penn State, and Rutgers to join, and you're in!

Just not seeing UCONN as an SEC member. Nothing against UCONN but that would be a cultural and geographic stretch.

(08-09-2013 10:01 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 01:05 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 11:52 AM)Poliicious Wrote:  If the SEC decides to add membership, a great surprise move would be UCONN

1) Gets the SEC into metro NYC and steals at least some of the Big 10's thunder with the Rutgers addition

2) UCONN despite fieldling a BCS football program did win a BE title(something that Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt havent' done outright and have only shared 1 each in the last 10 years)

3) SEC adds a National Championship Women's Hoops program, the best women's hoops program there is

4) ALso adds a Men's Hoops program that won the National Championship in 2011 and has earned 31 Men's Tourney Hoops Bids tieing with Temple for 11th and bested in the SEC by only Kentucky.

Help us build a bridge to you by bringing along UNC, UVA, Maryland, Penn State, and Rutgers to join, and you're in!

Just not seeing UCONN as an SEC member. Nothing against UCONN but that would be a cultural and geographic stretch.

I was just saying "no" in a nice way, Medic :)

(07-25-2013 01:24 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 12:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Quick point off of JR's mention of a rumbling in the ACC about full cost stipends. Thinking through it, this separation appears to be a football only distinction at the moment. From what I can tell, basketball and other sports will not be greatly affected by whether or not a school goes the full attendance route or not. Assuming that a good chunk of current P5 schools chose to not pursue full costs, would it really hurt their revenue or intentions for athletics? I'm thinking primarily about the private schools (sans Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC) and a handful of state schools like Kansas, UVA, Cal, and Georgia Tech. As long as they are playing each other in football and still able to compete at the highest level in all other sports (namely basketball), does it really matter to Duke if they play FSU or if Vandy plays Alabama? Nationally, those games rarely register and are not adding value to the existing TV contracts. If anything, they are limiting to the potential inventory of realigning the conferences more properly.

I say all that to say that perhaps the full cost of attendance is not as cut and dry as we may assume. It may only be favorable to 40-50 schools rather than 60-80, especially if it is ruled that allowing full cost scholarships must apply to all athletes if they want to do it with football particularly in mind.

I think this is where the issue resides. Title 9 will not permit just football to receive the stipend. It will be all scholarships or nothing. Note I said scholarships. For sports like baseball, softball, etc., which are permitted to give 1/2 or 1/4 scholarships the stipend will be payable in the same percentages as the scholarship amounts.

So, yes this will be a bigger issue than some are letting on. The rumor I heard was that Duke, B.C., and Wake were resistant, and possibly a couple of more.

"If" these issues come to fruition for these schools, and "if" Texas has eyes on independence (in a N.D. kind of way) then 3 regional conferences of 20 is still within the realm of possibility. If schools like Duke, Wake, & B.C. opt out I could see an upper division of 60 schools divided into 3 conferences. I think the Big 10, PAC & SEC would be all in. Then further growth would be out of the Big 12 (once Texas left) and the ACC (due to the split over D4).

The power schools are going to have to be very careful about how they handle the entrance requirements for a potential D4. If they just leave it as you have to have X number of sports and pay full cost of tuition scholarships to every athlete, there will be some lower tier schools that will do whatever it takes to stay in that top division, even if they lose a ton of money every year. Apologies in advance to these schools, but I'm thinking specifically about ECU, USM, Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, and maybe Houston/SMU. These are schools that so badly want to be considered top tier that they would do just about anything to get in. The only thing stopping them at this point is the one thing that may be hardest to legally adopt for the initial split to D4; an invitation from existing members. The big boys need to be very, very careful about how they handle this potential split.

ECU can afford it now. We may not have the budget of a P5 schools, but we had to make do with less since we started playing college sports in 1913. We done well enough we just increased our budget by 6 million this year.

(08-05-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I continue to think about this situation as it is the Big 12 that is most likely to yield the next round of realignment. Having considered all options here is what I am presently thinking.

1. Unless Oklahoma is one of the teams the SEC would add I don't see the need to add anyone from the Big 12. And if Oklahoma comes to the SEC then West Virginia or Kansas should be the one to come with them.

2. The best course of action in my opinion, outside of an Oklahoma addition to the SEC is to refuse to take any of the Big 12 teams forcing the ACC to take multiples if the conference is to be dissolved.

3. Should Texas need a place to move outside of the PAC the ACC seems to me to be the most likely destination, but they won't want to go alone.

4. Given ESPN's third tier interest in Kansas (a move likely designed to thwart Big 10 expansion Southward into Kansas or deeper into the Big 12 then perhaps Kansas is of interest to the ACC as well.

5. The SEC should refrain from taking Big 12 schools in exchange for a decent pod of 4 moving to the ACC. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Kansas would do nicely. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and West Virginia would be fine as well.

6. The cost of remaining out of the ACC's way should be North Carolina State and Virginia Tech. The ACC loses no footprint and gains a Western Pod even if West Virginia is part of the 4 moving to the ACC (Miami shifts to the West).

7. A move to D4 solves two problems for the ACC. New requirements at the D4 level and its structure require ND's full membership. The new requirements also lead to Wake Forest stepping down. With only two N.Carolina schools balance is achieved in the ACC.
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse

East: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma (or Oklahoma State), Texas

8. I also don't see any future moves until after the establishment of D4. Then I believe we will see a somewhat more orderly restructuring into 4 somewhat balanced conferences.

ESPN protects the best Big 12 property and solidifies the SEC's new partnership with the ACC.

I listed an option for Oklahoma State's inclusion. A compromise position might be needed for the PAC (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Iowa State).

No matter how this gets done the future enemy of the ACC will be the Big 10, not the SEC. I can see Swofford making a preemptive move here as the ACC did almost two decades ago with the Big East.

It is mindsets like this that will cause NOTHING to happen.

All of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas coming to the SEC. Selfish. And impossible. Good luck!

(08-12-2013 10:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I continue to think about this situation as it is the Big 12 that is most likely to yield the next round of realignment. Having considered all options here is what I am presently thinking.

1. Unless Oklahoma is one of the teams the SEC would add I don't see the need to add anyone from the Big 12. And if Oklahoma comes to the SEC then West Virginia or Kansas should be the one to come with them.

2. The best course of action in my opinion, outside of an Oklahoma addition to the SEC is to refuse to take any of the Big 12 teams forcing the ACC to take multiples if the conference is to be dissolved.

3. Should Texas need a place to move outside of the PAC the ACC seems to me to be the most likely destination, but they won't want to go alone.

4. Given ESPN's third tier interest in Kansas (a move likely designed to thwart Big 10 expansion Southward into Kansas or deeper into the Big 12 then perhaps Kansas is of interest to the ACC as well.

5. The SEC should refrain from taking Big 12 schools in exchange for a decent pod of 4 moving to the ACC. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Kansas would do nicely. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and West Virginia would be fine as well.

6. The cost of remaining out of the ACC's way should be North Carolina State and Virginia Tech. The ACC loses no footprint and gains a Western Pod even if West Virginia is part of the 4 moving to the ACC (Miami shifts to the West).

7. A move to D4 solves two problems for the ACC. New requirements at the D4 level and its structure require ND's full membership. The new requirements also lead to Wake Forest stepping down. With only two N.Carolina schools balance is achieved in the ACC.
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse

East: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma (or Oklahoma State), Texas

8. I also don't see any future moves until after the establishment of D4. Then I believe we will see a somewhat more orderly restructuring into 4 somewhat balanced conferences.

ESPN protects the best Big 12 property and solidifies the SEC's new partnership with the ACC.

I listed an option for Oklahoma State's inclusion. A compromise position might be needed for the PAC (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Iowa State).

No matter how this gets done the future enemy of the ACC will be the Big 10, not the SEC. I can see Swofford making a preemptive move here as the ACC did almost two decades ago with the Big East.

It is mindsets like this that will cause NOTHING to happen.

All of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas coming to the SEC. Selfish. And impossible. Good luck!

Read it more carefully. I said if Oklahoma was not one of the schools coming over to the SEC then we would be better off not taking any of the Big 12 schools. If Texas was headed to the ACC they are going to have to make room for more than 2 in my opinion. If all moves happen after the move up to D4 then Wake may no longer be an issue for the ACC. Therefore they would have two open slots for full time teams. If the SEC refused to take Big 12 schools then the ACC to accommodate Texas and to get ND to join full time may be more open to letting duplicate footprint schools N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving to the SEC without GOR restricitions. Then there would be 4 full slots open. That allows them to take 4 schools from the Big 12 and Texas as a hybrid. The SEC gets what they have wanted without taking any more Big 12 schools. Even if the ACC took Texahoma Kansas is still free to move to the Big 10. But more likely they would go after Texas (hybrid), Baylor, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I'm sure they would like Kansas but I doubt they would get them. Anyway I never said Texas, OU and Kansas to the SEC.

(08-12-2013 10:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 10:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I continue to think about this situation as it is the Big 12 that is most likely to yield the next round of realignment. Having considered all options here is what I am presently thinking.

1. Unless Oklahoma is one of the teams the SEC would add I don't see the need to add anyone from the Big 12. And if Oklahoma comes to the SEC then West Virginia or Kansas should be the one to come with them.

2. The best course of action in my opinion, outside of an Oklahoma addition to the SEC is to refuse to take any of the Big 12 teams forcing the ACC to take multiples if the conference is to be dissolved.

3. Should Texas need a place to move outside of the PAC the ACC seems to me to be the most likely destination, but they won't want to go alone.

4. Given ESPN's third tier interest in Kansas (a move likely designed to thwart Big 10 expansion Southward into Kansas or deeper into the Big 12 then perhaps Kansas is of interest to the ACC as well.

5. The SEC should refrain from taking Big 12 schools in exchange for a decent pod of 4 moving to the ACC. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Kansas would do nicely. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and West Virginia would be fine as well.

6. The cost of remaining out of the ACC's way should be North Carolina State and Virginia Tech. The ACC loses no footprint and gains a Western Pod even if West Virginia is part of the 4 moving to the ACC (Miami shifts to the West).

7. A move to D4 solves two problems for the ACC. New requirements at the D4 level and its structure require ND's full membership. The new requirements also lead to Wake Forest stepping down. With only two N.Carolina schools balance is achieved in the ACC.
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse

East: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma (or Oklahoma State), Texas

8. I also don't see any future moves until after the establishment of D4. Then I believe we will see a somewhat more orderly restructuring into 4 somewhat balanced conferences.

ESPN protects the best Big 12 property and solidifies the SEC's new partnership with the ACC.

I listed an option for Oklahoma State's inclusion. A compromise position might be needed for the PAC (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Iowa State).

No matter how this gets done the future enemy of the ACC will be the Big 10, not the SEC. I can see Swofford making a preemptive move here as the ACC did almost two decades ago with the Big East.

It is mindsets like this that will cause NOTHING to happen.

All of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas coming to the SEC. Selfish. And impossible. Good luck!

Read it more carefully. I said if Oklahoma was not one of the schools coming over to the SEC then we would be better off not taking any of the Big 12 schools. If Texas was headed to the ACC they are going to have to make room for more than 2 in my opinion. If all moves happen after the move up to D4 then Wake may no longer be an issue for the ACC. Therefore they would have two open slots for full time teams. If the SEC refused to take Big 12 schools then the ACC to accommodate Texas and to get ND to join full time may be more open to letting duplicate footprint schools N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving to the SEC without GOR restricitions. Then there would be 4 full slots open. That allows them to take 4 schools from the Big 12 and Texas as a hybrid. The SEC gets what they have wanted without taking any more Big 12 schools. Even if the ACC took Texahoma Kansas is still free to move to the Big 10. But more likely they would go after Texas (hybrid), Baylor, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I'm sure they would like Kansas but I doubt they would get them. Anyway I never said Texas, OU and Kansas to the SEC.

If the SEC tries to pull that then as the Big Ten, PAC and ACC I would try to pull a three way move that will pretty much do an end around on the SEC.

The Big Ten could take three, the ACC could take Texas plus two more and then the PAC could take six. The Big Ten then COULD round out 18 with UConn.

At that point the looming threat is that the ACC, Big Ten and PAC will hold majority voting rights at the top of the new division and will write new rules that has a stipulation for needing 16 members or more. That will force the SEC to then expand with "lesser" schools in their own estimation.

Truly, you are looking at this with biased viewpoint. I still see no evidence that we are going to see two conferences pulled apart. It is just my opinion of course but I still believe that it is one or the other and the Big 12 serves everyone's purposes better than the ACC does.

(08-12-2013 10:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 10:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 10:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-05-2013 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I continue to think about this situation as it is the Big 12 that is most likely to yield the next round of realignment. Having considered all options here is what I am presently thinking.

1. Unless Oklahoma is one of the teams the SEC would add I don't see the need to add anyone from the Big 12. And if Oklahoma comes to the SEC then West Virginia or Kansas should be the one to come with them.

2. The best course of action in my opinion, outside of an Oklahoma addition to the SEC is to refuse to take any of the Big 12 teams forcing the ACC to take multiples if the conference is to be dissolved.

3. Should Texas need a place to move outside of the PAC the ACC seems to me to be the most likely destination, but they won't want to go alone.

4. Given ESPN's third tier interest in Kansas (a move likely designed to thwart Big 10 expansion Southward into Kansas or deeper into the Big 12 then perhaps Kansas is of interest to the ACC as well.

5. The SEC should refrain from taking Big 12 schools in exchange for a decent pod of 4 moving to the ACC. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Kansas would do nicely. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and West Virginia would be fine as well.

6. The cost of remaining out of the ACC's way should be North Carolina State and Virginia Tech. The ACC loses no footprint and gains a Western Pod even if West Virginia is part of the 4 moving to the ACC (Miami shifts to the West).

7. A move to D4 solves two problems for the ACC. New requirements at the D4 level and its structure require ND's full membership. The new requirements also lead to Wake Forest stepping down. With only two N.Carolina schools balance is achieved in the ACC.
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse

East: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

West: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma (or Oklahoma State), Texas

8. I also don't see any future moves until after the establishment of D4. Then I believe we will see a somewhat more orderly restructuring into 4 somewhat balanced conferences.

ESPN protects the best Big 12 property and solidifies the SEC's new partnership with the ACC.

I listed an option for Oklahoma State's inclusion. A compromise position might be needed for the PAC (Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas State, T.C.U./Iowa State).

No matter how this gets done the future enemy of the ACC will be the Big 10, not the SEC. I can see Swofford making a preemptive move here as the ACC did almost two decades ago with the Big East.

It is mindsets like this that will cause NOTHING to happen.

All of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas coming to the SEC. Selfish. And impossible. Good luck!

Read it more carefully. I said if Oklahoma was not one of the schools coming over to the SEC then we would be better off not taking any of the Big 12 schools. If Texas was headed to the ACC they are going to have to make room for more than 2 in my opinion. If all moves happen after the move up to D4 then Wake may no longer be an issue for the ACC. Therefore they would have two open slots for full time teams. If the SEC refused to take Big 12 schools then the ACC to accommodate Texas and to get ND to join full time may be more open to letting duplicate footprint schools N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving to the SEC without GOR restricitions. Then there would be 4 full slots open. That allows them to take 4 schools from the Big 12 and Texas as a hybrid. The SEC gets what they have wanted without taking any more Big 12 schools. Even if the ACC took Texahoma Kansas is still free to move to the Big 10. But more likely they would go after Texas (hybrid), Baylor, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I'm sure they would like Kansas but I doubt they would get them. Anyway I never said Texas, OU and Kansas to the SEC.

If the SEC tries to pull that then as the Big Ten, PAC and ACC I would try to pull a three way move that will pretty much do an end around on the SEC.

The Big Ten could take three, the ACC could take Texas plus two more and then the PAC could take six. The Big Ten then COULD round out 18 with UConn.

At that point the looming threat is that the ACC, Big Ten and PAC will hold majority voting rights at the top of the new division and will write new rules that has a stipulation for needing 16 members or more. That will force the SEC to then expand with "lesser" schools in their own estimation.

Truly, you are looking at this with biased viewpoint. I still see no evidence that we are going to see two conferences pulled apart. It is just my opinion of course but I still believe that it is one or the other and the Big 12 serves everyone's purposes better than the ACC does.

I agree that the Big 12 is the likely lamb. Their parts are potentially more valuable than their whole. As far as the Big 10 is concerned they really only could take just 4 of the Big 12 schools (Iowa State, Kansas, Texas) meet AAU requirements and Oklahoma might be acceptable. Everyone else is out of their consideration range. Since Texas and Kansas are engaged with ESPN over tier 3 whether or not they could or would move to the Big 10 is in question. The SEC doesn't need Texas and Kansas is not really a cultural fit, nor is the SEC likely high on KU's list of acceptable destinations. The SEC is a force and will act in its self interest. Oklahoma is catch for any conference and they are contiguous. If the SEC could get the Sooners with another new state for their footprint (Kansas, Kansas State, or West Virginia) then we would take two and move to 16 and stop. If Oklahoma is not available then our best route is to hold out and hope that Texas plus 3 or 4 depending on what happens to Wake Forest would move to the ACC and that the SEC could pick up Virginia Tech and N.C. State (making room for a western division of 4 for the ACC). As long as Kansas isn't one of those in that western divisions for the ACC then the Big 10 could close out at 16 as well with UConn and KU. The SEC closes out at 16. The ACC closes out at 16 plus either 1 or 2 hybrids (depending upon Wake). If Wake drops out it could be Texas full time plus two with Miami making up their pod. The Canes have to fly everywhere anyway so it would matter to them.

But I promise you this. If Delany moves to 20 it means the ACC and the Big 12 will be gone. He can't get there without that happening. And if the Big 10 goes 20 so will Slive. And if both the Big 10 and SEC go to 20 then the PAC will respond and the game ends somewhere between 56 and 60 teams depending upon how many the PAC takes. Otherwise we are all stopping at 16. I could see the ACC at 16 plus ND, the Big 10 and SEC at 16 and the PAC still at 12 for a total of 61, but likely it goes to 64 plus 1.

The new Orangebloods rumor about Deloss Dodds retiring before the end of the year is very intriguing. Of course Dodds is denying it but he would have to do that if it was true or false so his denial means nothing. What Dodds DID say is the names of Swarbrick and Bowlsby IF he was to do so. I think it is safe to say we can pencil in Bowlsby as the future Texas AD. Besides, he is going to need a new job and Texas has the most to lose should Bowlsby veer from the party line. He also has a very good history of picking successful college football coaches when he was at Stanford. Texas needs that with their next AD as it seems Dodds wants the next AD to have to hire their new Head Coaches for Football, Basketball and Baseball. All of their Men's head coaches in their big three sports are underperforming.

It is all about intersecting storylines. Dodd's stepping down before the end of the year, RIGHT before we have that January meeting to announce the change in the NCAA? Which very likely will bring about the changes that allow for our last phase of realignment to happen. I can see why Dodds would rather retire and move into that advisor role before all this happens. That way what is about to happen to Texas won't be done on his watch.

(09-13-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The new Orangebloods rumor about Deloss Dodds retiring before the end of the year is very intriguing. Of course Dodds is denying it but he would have to do that if it was true or false so his denial means nothing. What Dodds DID say is the names of Swarbrick and Bowlsby IF he was to do so. I think it is safe to say we can pencil in Bowlsby as the future Texas AD. Besides, he is going to need a new job and Texas has the most to lose should Bowlsby veer from the party line. He also has a very good history of picking successful college football coaches when he was at Stanford. Texas needs that with their next AD as it seems Dodds wants the next AD to have to hire their new Head Coaches for Football, Basketball and Baseball. All of their Men's head coaches in their big three sports are underperforming.

It is all about intersecting storylines. Dodd's stepping down before the end of the year, RIGHT before we have that January meeting to announce the change in the NCAA? Which very likely will bring about the changes that allow for our last phase of realignment to happen. I can see why Dodds would rather retire and move into that advisor role before all this happens. That way what is about to happen to Texas won't be done on his watch.

The Hairy Bovine had a reported rumor earlier today that Bowlsby would be the hire for another reason....he's a PAC guy. This guy reported that the same sources that said Deloss would be gone also said that they expected Texas to move to the PAC. Another guy reported that he had heard from someone in the know (fwiw) that they would be independent within 4 years. Of course the former brings the 4 team to the PAC specter back up (but with no mention of the Oklahoma's at this point) and the latter is more in line with Texas to the ACC with a ND deal.

It certainly will get interesting again. The whole ESPN angle still makes me believe that it will be the ACC if Texas makes this kind of move. The indy status would really solve some of their issues. I still can't see them going to the ACC without an entourage however. I still think the smartest move that could be made by the ACC is releasing N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and forming a 4 team Western Pod made up of former Big 12 schools.

They are at 14 full and N.D. now. They would be at 12 full plus N.D. prior to the move. It's doable and would make more sense than taking Texas and one other. The only way Texas to the ACC makes any sense with just the Longhorns would be if N.D. were joining in full with them to make 16. The the Horns could schedule the Aggies at the end of the year with the ACC/SEC rivalry close of the season games. Kansas and Oklahoma would then be an option for the Big 10, or SEC, and the grouping you've talked about could still complete the PAC.

If the Texahoma deal to the PAC comes about it will get interesting. I guess the Big 10 would be looking at Kansas and either Iowa State or UConn. The SEC would likely be looking at Baylor and West Virginia. But truthfully between Kansas and Iowa there are almost 6 million more viewers. I guess the SEC could take Kansas State and Iowa State and come out ahead on markets but it wouldn't be a comfortable fit. Maybe then either West Virgina or UConn or both go to the ACC. But any way you look at it if Texahoma to the PAC occurs the options for both the Big 10 and SEC get much slimmer.

(09-13-2013 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The new Orangebloods rumor about Deloss Dodds retiring before the end of the year is very intriguing. Of course Dodds is denying it but he would have to do that if it was true or false so his denial means nothing. What Dodds DID say is the names of Swarbrick and Bowlsby IF he was to do so. I think it is safe to say we can pencil in Bowlsby as the future Texas AD. Besides, he is going to need a new job and Texas has the most to lose should Bowlsby veer from the party line. He also has a very good history of picking successful college football coaches when he was at Stanford. Texas needs that with their next AD as it seems Dodds wants the next AD to have to hire their new Head Coaches for Football, Basketball and Baseball. All of their Men's head coaches in their big three sports are underperforming.

It is all about intersecting storylines. Dodd's stepping down before the end of the year, RIGHT before we have that January meeting to announce the change in the NCAA? Which very likely will bring about the changes that allow for our last phase of realignment to happen. I can see why Dodds would rather retire and move into that advisor role before all this happens. That way what is about to happen to Texas won't be done on his watch.

The Hairy Bovine had a reported rumor earlier today that Bowlsby would be the hire for another reason....he's a PAC guy. This guy reported that the same sources that said Deloss would be gone also said that they expected Texas to move to the PAC. Another guy reported that he had heard from someone in the know (fwiw) that they would be independent within 4 years. Of course the former brings the 4 team to the PAC specter back up (but with no mention of the Oklahoma's at this point) and the latter is more in line with Texas to the ACC with a ND deal.

It certainly will get interesting again. The whole ESPN angle still makes me believe that it will be the ACC if Texas makes this kind of move. The indy status would really solve some of their issues. I still can't see them going to the ACC without an entourage however. I still think the smartest move that could be made by the ACC is releasing N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and forming a 4 team Western Pod made up of former Big 12 schools.

They are at 14 full and N.D. now. They would be at 12 full plus N.D. prior to the move. It's doable and would make more sense than taking Texas and one other. The only way Texas to the ACC makes any sense with just the Longhorns would be if N.D. were joining in full with them to make 16. The the Horns could schedule the Aggies at the end of the year with the ACC/SEC rivalry close of the season games. Kansas and Oklahoma would then be an option for the Big 10, or SEC, and the grouping you've talked about could still complete the PAC.

If the Texahoma deal to the PAC comes about it will get interesting. I guess the Big 10 would be looking at Kansas and either Iowa State or UConn. The SEC would likely be looking at Baylor and West Virginia. But truthfully between Kansas and Iowa there are almost 6 million more viewers. I guess the SEC could take Kansas State and Iowa State and come out ahead on markets but it wouldn't be a comfortable fit. Maybe then either West Virgina or UConn or both go to the ACC. But any way you look at it if Texahoma to the PAC occurs the options for both the Big 10 and SEC get much slimmer.

Well, you know me and my position. For me all of these latest rumors only strengthen my belief in what will inevitably happen.

The one supposition about Bowlsby as Texas AD hinting to us of PAC favoritism by the Texas President and Boosters, well that just doesn't sit with me. Stanford was just one stop for Bowlsby. In fact, he spent Much more time at The University of Iowa.

On the contrary, the choosing of Bowlsby for me is more about keeping him singing the tune that Texas has been writing for him this whole time. I think he is most deserved of a huge contract with the University of Texas considering what we are about to watch these Universities embark upon at the start of the coming year.

To be honest, I cannot blame DeLoss Dodds at all for not wanting to be at the helm when this begins. Better to receive the same pay he receives now but to be less responsible when all of this breaks open. There are going to be quite a few angry boosters no doubt. That too, is inevitable. Considering Dodds will be making the same pay, I would say it is inevitable that they will HAVE to pay the new AD More than him. Who is more deserving of such pay than Commissioner Bowlsby?

Texas....Independent....to the ACC. The extended circumstances of that are of course still debatable. If the Big 12 must be ended, then there is no better situation for Texas than Independence, with ties to the ACC AND to ESPN while still being able to maintain their LHN. They will have a massive upgrade in ALL OTHER SPORTS by being part of the ACC. There are many sports that the "Gentry" at UT would probably love to see their dandy boys and girls taking part in but unfortunately their more "common" neighbors in the Big 12 do not and will not take part in while still part of the Big 12.

Baylor shows the most promise as to being able to have impressive showing in many sports that the ACC supports. Between TCU and Tech, whom do you think the ACC would rather have? For me, the choice is obvious.

That matches up just fine with the rise of Texas Tech football that we are about to see. Their inclusion into the PAC would be wonderful for them. The PAC Network would definitely get some airplay in Texas. I think we are about to see a rise of Tech as we have seen in A&M.

The timing of everything is quite impressive. That includes the gameplay of certain schools on the field that only enforces these such choices.

Look at Baylor. Their football team is one of the most exciting offensive displays now on a yearly basis. Their basketball team is most surprising as is their women's basketball. Their Stadium under constructions is applauded by many. It will be loved by ESPN should Baylor move into the ACC.

Under Patterson, TCU will continue to be shown much love by the polls AND ESPN should they too move into the ACC. We have already seen just how F'n powerful ESPN is when it comes to showcasing their true brands. Only the ACC and SEC get to have their names showcased with the ESPN brand name.

The trio of Texas as partial member as well as Baylor and TCU as full members of the ACC will very much be pleasing to ESPN. The ACC will have the largest population footprint AND it will have three programs in King State of College Football.

ESPN may not like Realignment but if it is going to happen anyways, then ESPN is going to guide it in a way that best suits their bottom line.

That is why Texas will go to the ACC. The ACC Network was never going to happen and when this move happens, there will be zero calls for mutiny within the ACC. No Network, but a full seat at the table and strong ties into two out of the three main States when it comes to Recruiting.

I fully understand why you still hold some hope for getting Virginia Tech and NC State but when you look at this situation, why would they?

(09-13-2013 10:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The new Orangebloods rumor about Deloss Dodds retiring before the end of the year is very intriguing. Of course Dodds is denying it but he would have to do that if it was true or false so his denial means nothing. What Dodds DID say is the names of Swarbrick and Bowlsby IF he was to do so. I think it is safe to say we can pencil in Bowlsby as the future Texas AD. Besides, he is going to need a new job and Texas has the most to lose should Bowlsby veer from the party line. He also has a very good history of picking successful college football coaches when he was at Stanford. Texas needs that with their next AD as it seems Dodds wants the next AD to have to hire their new Head Coaches for Football, Basketball and Baseball. All of their Men's head coaches in their big three sports are underperforming.

It is all about intersecting storylines. Dodd's stepping down before the end of the year, RIGHT before we have that January meeting to announce the change in the NCAA? Which very likely will bring about the changes that allow for our last phase of realignment to happen. I can see why Dodds would rather retire and move into that advisor role before all this happens. That way what is about to happen to Texas won't be done on his watch.

The Hairy Bovine had a reported rumor earlier today that Bowlsby would be the hire for another reason....he's a PAC guy. This guy reported that the same sources that said Deloss would be gone also said that they expected Texas to move to the PAC. Another guy reported that he had heard from someone in the know (fwiw) that they would be independent within 4 years. Of course the former brings the 4 team to the PAC specter back up (but with no mention of the Oklahoma's at this point) and the latter is more in line with Texas to the ACC with a ND deal.

It certainly will get interesting again. The whole ESPN angle still makes me believe that it will be the ACC if Texas makes this kind of move. The indy status would really solve some of their issues. I still can't see them going to the ACC without an entourage however. I still think the smartest move that could be made by the ACC is releasing N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC and forming a 4 team Western Pod made up of former Big 12 schools.

They are at 14 full and N.D. now. They would be at 12 full plus N.D. prior to the move. It's doable and would make more sense than taking Texas and one other. The only way Texas to the ACC makes any sense with just the Longhorns would be if N.D. were joining in full with them to make 16. The the Horns could schedule the Aggies at the end of the year with the ACC/SEC rivalry close of the season games. Kansas and Oklahoma would then be an option for the Big 10, or SEC, and the grouping you've talked about could still complete the PAC.

If the Texahoma deal to the PAC comes about it will get interesting. I guess the Big 10 would be looking at Kansas and either Iowa State or UConn. The SEC would likely be looking at Baylor and West Virginia. But truthfully between Kansas and Iowa there are almost 6 million more viewers. I guess the SEC could take Kansas State and Iowa State and come out ahead on markets but it wouldn't be a comfortable fit. Maybe then either West Virgina or UConn or both go to the ACC. But any way you look at it if Texahoma to the PAC occurs the options for both the Big 10 and SEC get much slimmer.

Well, you know me and my position. For me all of these latest rumors only strengthen my belief in what will inevitably happen.

The one supposition about Bowlsby as Texas AD hinting to us of PAC favoritism by the Texas President and Boosters, well that just doesn't sit with me. Stanford was just one stop for Bowlsby. In fact, he spent Much more time at The University of Iowa.

On the contrary, the choosing of Bowlsby for me is more about keeping him singing the tune that Texas has been writing for him this whole time. I think he is most deserved of a huge contract with the University of Texas considering what we are about to watch these Universities embark upon at the start of the coming year.

To be honest, I cannot blame DeLoss Dodds at all for not wanting to be at the helm when this begins. Better to receive the same pay he receives now but to be less responsible when all of this breaks open. There are going to be quite a few angry boosters no doubt. That too, is inevitable. Considering Dodds will be making the same pay, I would say it is inevitable that they will HAVE to pay the new AD More than him. Who is more deserving of such pay than Commissioner Bowlsby?

Texas....Independent....to the ACC. The extended circumstances of that are of course still debatable. If the Big 12 must be ended, then there is no better situation for Texas than Independence, with ties to the ACC AND to ESPN while still being able to maintain their LHN. They will have a massive upgrade in ALL OTHER SPORTS by being part of the ACC. There are many sports that the "Gentry" at UT would probably love to see their dandy boys and girls taking part in but unfortunately their more "common" neighbors in the Big 12 do not and will not take part in while still part of the Big 12.

Baylor shows the most promise as to being able to have impressive showing in many sports that the ACC supports. Between TCU and Tech, whom do you think the ACC would rather have? For me, the choice is obvious.

That matches up just fine with the rise of Texas Tech football that we are about to see. Their inclusion into the PAC would be wonderful for them. The PAC Network would definitely get some airplay in Texas. I think we are about to see a rise of Tech as we have seen in A&M.

The timing of everything is quite impressive. That includes the gameplay of certain schools on the field that only enforces these such choices.

Look at Baylor. Their football team is one of the most exciting offensive displays now on a yearly basis. Their basketball team is most surprising as is their women's basketball. Their Stadium under constructions is applauded by many. It will be loved by ESPN should Baylor move into the ACC.

Under Patterson, TCU will continue to be shown much love by the polls AND ESPN should they too move into the ACC. We have already seen just how F'n powerful ESPN is when it comes to showcasing their true brands. Only the ACC and SEC get to have their names showcased with the ESPN brand name.

The trio of Texas as partial member as well as Baylor and TCU as full members of the ACC will very much be pleasing to ESPN. The ACC will have the largest population footprint AND it will have three programs in King State of College Football.

ESPN may not like Realignment but if it is going to happen anyways, then ESPN is going to guide it in a way that best suits their bottom line.

That is why Texas will go to the ACC. The ACC Network was never going to happen and when this move happens, there will be zero calls for mutiny within the ACC. No Network, but a full seat at the table and strong ties into two out of the three main States when it comes to Recruiting.

I fully understand why you still hold some hope for getting Virginia Tech and NC State but when you look at this situation, why would they?

Because it will be deuce difficult to set up a Western division in the ACC without two more additions out West. And the Kansas tier three still bugs me a bit as being incompatible with a gift to FOX. And because the SEC will have enough income in two years to pluck whomever they desire from the South so why would ESPN care to have ruffled feathers within their ranks when a simple business deal would be easier and more likely to bring a lasting peace. Five of the top ten revenue producers are in the SEC and 11 of the SEC teams are in the top 30. If Slive wants the markets in Virginia and North Carolina and the ACC can accommodate a larger Western footprint by letting the SEC have them, and especially since the ACC wouldn't be losing those states as part of their footprint, and since those schools would earn more in the SEC and have an identity of their own independent of North Carolina and Virginia then why not?

If that doesn't happen the SEC might settle for West Virginia and another. But the DFW market is essential for the SEC to be able to truly have the entire state of Texas's audience on a regular basis. Baylor, T.C.U., S.M.U., and Oklahoma would all give them that market. I rule S.M.U. out only because 8 of the Big 12 teams will have to be placed.

Kansas State gives the SEC access to 3 million viewers and their school of Vet medicine already shares some things with Auburn, Georgia and Miss State. But culturally speaking they are removed from the South. Ditto for Iowa State. I think if our options are 2 from the remaining teams of the Big 12 then Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia would be the teams to select from.

West Virginia has disadvantages. First the sell beer at games, an SEC no no. Second they would have to add sports and build facilities to meet SEC minimum requirements. Of the four only Baylor adds a decent hoops program with Kansas State being a strong mid range hoops competitor in the Big 12. I'd classify Oklahoma State as a strong mid range competitor in hoops as well. West Virginia not so much right now but they do have history and potential. Baylor's academics are a plus. Not so much for the other three with West Virginia's being the poorest of the lot.

If we took another Texas school then Oklahoma State would be the 16th. If we don't then there is a good possibility that Oklahoma State and Kansas State would be the picks in spite of the cultural differences. But that is only if there are no other options available. Plus if those schools state rivals are in the ACC then it would make more sense to make a move like this. Who the ACC gets will in part decide I think who the SEC selects in this matter because with the Big 12 gone the ACC would be our new partner conference.

But in conclusion, the SEC has only ever gone after flagship state schools. The SEC is the most powerful athletic conference and the second most powerful conference in total income. Accommodations will be made to keep Slive happy and to maximize the value of the SECN and ESPN's investment in it. If it came down to it, I think N.C. State would make the move. I'm not so sure about Tech. But in the ACC outside of Louisville the worst to academic schools are N.C. State and Florida State.

I think the SEC might compromise on the last two if any deal is worked with the ACC. But He1nous do not underestimate the natural attraction that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together would have for the SEC. With Arkansas, L.S.U., Texas A&M, and Missouri they have a built in regional schedule. They are cultural fits, and the games would be a heckuva lot closer and the money not that much different.

Oh, and one other point. If the SEC refused to take anyone it would very likely result in the other moving Big 12 members having to pay some huge damage claims. So nobody is going to land two cherries out of that pie. Not the ACC, not the SEC, and not the Big 10.

Right....the plan is confounded by beer sales and the necessity for the SEC to maintain it's pride? Instead of all this happening, we should have five major conferences instead simply because Oklahoma and Kansas would prefer the Big Ten over the SEC? Of course I state that last little bit in hypotheticals only. I have no idea for sure whom Oklahoma would choose but I do believe the SEC would be their third choice behind the PAC and Big Ten.

In terms of divisions for the ACC. The West?

Baylor
TCU
Louisville
Pitt.

There, easy enough. I'm sure Pitt and Louisville wouldn't mind that inside track on Texas recruiting and they would have their own little regional rivalry as an every year game. That wasn't that hard of a problem to solve and neither would be the selling of beer at WVU.

Come on....

(09-14-2013 01:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right....the plan is confounded by beer sales and the necessity for the SEC to maintain it's pride? Instead of all this happening, we should have five major conferences instead simply because Oklahoma and Kansas would prefer the Big Ten over the SEC? Of course I state that last little bit in hypotheticals only. I have no idea for sure whom Oklahoma would choose but I do believe the SEC would be their third choice behind the PAC and Big Ten.

In terms of divisions for the ACC. The West?

Baylor
TCU
Louisville
Pitt.

There, easy enough. I'm sure Pitt and Louisville wouldn't mind that inside track on Texas recruiting and they would have their own little regional rivalry as an every year game. That wasn't that hard of a problem to solve and neither would be the selling of beer at WVU.

Come on....

I do not care where UT ends up as long as it is not in the SEC. Sorry... just the way a Missouri fan feels. We will deal with the expansion scenarios presented with the SEC. I am pretty sure the Aggies feel likewise.

(09-14-2013 01:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right....the plan is confounded by beer sales and the necessity for the SEC to maintain it's pride? Instead of all this happening, we should have five major conferences instead simply because Oklahoma and Kansas would prefer the Big Ten over the SEC? Of course I state that last little bit in hypotheticals only. I have no idea for sure whom Oklahoma would choose but I do believe the SEC would be their third choice behind the PAC and Big Ten.

In terms of divisions for the ACC. The West?

Baylor
TCU
Louisville
Pitt.

There, easy enough. I'm sure Pitt and Louisville wouldn't mind that inside track on Texas recruiting and they would have their own little regional rivalry as an every year game. That wasn't that hard of a problem to solve and neither would be the selling of beer at WVU.

Come on....

Swimming and Diving, Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field, Women's Gymnastics, an up to speed Baseball facility, Women's Softball, Women's Soccer, Women's Tennis & Golf, all of these are requirements for the SEC. West Virginia has some of these, but I'm not so sure they have all of them and I'm bit tired to look it up tonight, but I will tomorrow. The beer sales are a minor, but non-negotiable item. And then there is the SEC's desire to enhance its academic profile. There are a few more problems with the plan than first perceived.

The cherries are obvious, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. No one conference is going to get two of them or it will be stalemate. If WVU can work out its logistical issues they certainly have a shot, but not at the expense of one of the first three, only in addition to them.

As for your solution the mileage is too extreme. The closest solution would be Baylor, T.C.U., Miami (who has to fly everywhere anyway, and Florida State who is just down I10. But I doubt that is going to excite anyone.

However the three way deal I mentioned would satisfy all parties. If the SEC got into their two stated markets of desire Oklahoma and Kansas could easily move to the Big 10. The SEC and Big 10 sit at 16. Texas and whomever is in the ACC, Texas Tech in the PAC with whomever and it's done. Personally I think the ACC should shoot for Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia as their four. All of them enhance the ACC's football chops and all of them would be mid range basketball talents in the ACC therefore not upsetting their kings. Miami would be moved with Baylor, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to form the Western Division. WVU would be reunited with Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville for the North. Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke for the East. Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Wake Forest for the South. Notre Dame and Texas loosely affiliated. Between the ACC and Big 10 seven schools are accounted for. The PAC takes Texas Tech and it's done.

I don't think other distribution models of the teams work out as efficiently . But if it came down to it my first set of thought processes about who we might take would still be in effect.

(09-14-2013 01:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right....the plan is confounded by beer sales and the necessity for the SEC to maintain it's pride? Instead of all this happening, we should have five major conferences instead simply because Oklahoma and Kansas would prefer the Big Ten over the SEC? Of course I state that last little bit in hypotheticals only. I have no idea for sure whom Oklahoma would choose but I do believe the SEC would be their third choice behind the PAC and Big Ten.

In terms of divisions for the ACC. The West?

Baylor
TCU
Louisville
Pitt.

There, easy enough. I'm sure Pitt and Louisville wouldn't mind that inside track on Texas recruiting and they would have their own little regional rivalry as an every year game. That wasn't that hard of a problem to solve and neither would be the selling of beer at WVU.

Come on....

Swimming and Diving, Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field, Women's Gymnastics, an up to speed Baseball facility, Women's Softball, Women's Soccer, Women's Tennis & Golf, all of these are requirements for the SEC. West Virginia has some of these, but I'm not so sure they have all of them and I'm bit tired to look it up tonight, but I will tomorrow. The beer sales are a minor, but non-negotiable item. And then there is the SEC's desire to enhance its academic profile. There are a few more problems with the plan than first perceived.

The cherries are obvious, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. No one conference is going to get two of them or it will be stalemate. If WVU can work out its logistical issues they certainly have a shot, but not at the expense of one of the first three, only in addition to them.

As for your solution the mileage is too extreme. The closes solution would be Baylor, T.C.U., Miami (who has to fly everywhere anyway, and Florida State who is just down I10. But I doubt that is going to excite anyone.

However the three way deal I mentioned would satisfy all parties. If the SEC got into their two stated markets of desire Oklahoma and Kansas could easily move to the Big 10. The SEC and Big 10 sit at 16. Texas and whomever is in the ACC, Texas Tech in the PAC with whomever and it's done. Personally I think the ACC should shoot for Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia as their four. All of them enhance the ACC's football chops and all of them would be mid range basketball talents in the ACC therefore not upsetting their kings. Miami would be moved with Baylor, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to form the Western Division. WVU would be reunited with Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville for the North. Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke for the East. Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Wake Forest for the South. Notre Dame and Texas loosely affiliated. Between the ACC and Big 10 seven schools are accounted for. The PAC takes Texas Tech and it's done.

I don't think other distribution models of the teams work out as efficiently . But if it came down to it my first set of thought processes about who we might take would still be in effect.