(09-23-2013 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are simply too many variables to be decided during, and shortly after January, for definitive statements to be made on either side of the realignment argument. Structure, stipends, playoff access, constraints upon the number of divisions a conference may have, all of these must be decided before we know if there will be 4 or 5 conferences. We have to know whether the ACC will get a network before we know how comfortable they will be in their GOR. If they get locked into revenue that is 15 million below what a Big 10 network or SEC network is providing in two years then they could be vulnerable again. I also add to this mix the extreme angst the Longhorn faithful have over the direction of that program, their desire to obtain the same scheduling luxury that N.D. has, and their desire to hang onto the LHN. Texas's desire to change leadership and direction could easily extend to how they see their future in the Big 12.

I respect the opinions of those who think things are settled for a decade, but I also acknowledge that the very structure of the sport could lead to bigger changes if that structure indeed changes. I also acknowledge that things are unstable around the bell cow (pun intended) in the Big 12, and that there are programs in the ACC that were promised a network who might not feel so peachy if it fails to materialize. Hence my position that its almost 5 months too early to be making predictions.

And to Olive and Blue, everyone assumes that Texas and Oklahoma will eschew the SEC in favor of academics. Maybe? Maybe not? The SEC is closer. The SEC is contiguous. The SEC contains two of their former big rivals in Arkansas and Texas A&M. The SEC contains an older rival in L.S.U., and Missouri is close enough to count. If the SEC ever moved to 18 teams and took Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia the breakdown of divisions would have the Longhorns and Sooners playing what were once the top 6 schools in their region and (Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri) that would make for quite a division.

As far as Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina voting against the top money making program in the nation whose inclusion would spike SEC content and deliver along with A&M a rock solid 26 million viewers is danged unlikely, especially now that none of that 4 are worried about the inclusion of their instate rivals into the SEC. Aggie and maybe Missouri would stand alone on this and that's not enough to stop it. I might also add that while the Aggie fans would be against it and understandably so that the Aggie administration might look at the political interests and profit angle a bit differently. If such a move returned Missouri to playing many more games closer to their campus I can't see their administration blowing up about it either.

Florida and Georgia would enjoy academic relationships with the Longhorns and Sooners. Okie State would be an accommodation but by adding West Virginia and its markets to the win win of Oklahoma and Texas the 4 combined would make everyone concerned a heckuva lot more money and that, not vitriol, moves the needle. With Kansas available to the Big 10, Texas Tech and T.C.U. providing access to Texas with one state school and one large market addition in T.C.U. (which is a secular school operation) the PAC would still have interest in this game even if these are not their preferences. Then if anyone picks up Baylor, Kansas State or Iowa State it becomes very doable. Heck if Texas goes to the ACC as a hybrid the SEC could still pull it off by adding Baylor as the second Texas entry into the SEC.

So, while all of this is speculation, and Texas and OU could go essentially anywhere they please, I think in the end they will opt for the most money that they can earn while playing the games their fan bases want to see, and that's not in the PAC or Big 10. They in essence can have the cream of the old SWC plus the Oklahomas and Missouri by becoming the SEC West. It may not be their preferred option, but it is the one that balances their combined interests while still enhancing the bottom line.

I do agree with Jr that the ACC TV deal failure could blow the lid off of everything. That is a significant issue with future realignment.

(09-23-2013 06:10 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 04:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are simply too many variables to be decided during, and shortly after January, for definitive statements to be made on either side of the realignment argument. Structure, stipends, playoff access, constraints upon the number of divisions a conference may have, all of these must be decided before we know if there will be 4 or 5 conferences. We have to know whether the ACC will get a network before we know how comfortable they will be in their GOR. If they get locked into revenue that is 15 million below what a Big 10 network or SEC network is providing in two years then they could be vulnerable again. I also add to this mix the extreme angst the Longhorn faithful have over the direction of that program, their desire to obtain the same scheduling luxury that N.D. has, and their desire to hang onto the LHN. Texas's desire to change leadership and direction could easily extend to how they see their future in the Big 12.

I respect the opinions of those who think things are settled for a decade, but I also acknowledge that the very structure of the sport could lead to bigger changes if that structure indeed changes. I also acknowledge that things are unstable around the bell cow (pun intended) in the Big 12, and that there are programs in the ACC that were promised a network who might not feel so peachy if it fails to materialize. Hence my position that its almost 5 months too early to be making predictions.

And to Olive and Blue, everyone assumes that Texas and Oklahoma will eschew the SEC in favor of academics. Maybe? Maybe not? The SEC is closer. The SEC is contiguous. The SEC contains two of their former big rivals in Arkansas and Texas A&M. The SEC contains an older rival in L.S.U., and Missouri is close enough to count. If the SEC ever moved to 18 teams and took Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia the breakdown of divisions would have the Longhorns and Sooners playing what were once the top 6 schools in their region and (Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri) that would make for quite a division.

As far as Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina voting against the top money making program in the nation whose inclusion would spike SEC content and deliver along with A&M a rock solid 26 million viewers is danged unlikely, especially now that none of that 4 are worried about the inclusion of their instate rivals into the SEC. Aggie and maybe Missouri would stand alone on this and that's not enough to stop it. I might also add that while the Aggie fans would be against it and understandably so that the Aggie administration might look at the political interests and profit angle a bit differently. If such a move returned Missouri to playing many more games closer to their campus I can't see their administration blowing up about it either.

Florida and Georgia would enjoy academic relationships with the Longhorns and Sooners. Okie State would be an accommodation but by adding West Virginia and its markets to the win win of Oklahoma and Texas the 4 combined would make everyone concerned a heckuva lot more money and that, not vitriol, moves the needle. With Kansas available to the Big 10, Texas Tech and T.C.U. providing access to Texas with one state school and one large market addition in T.C.U. (which is a secular school operation) the PAC would still have interest in this game even if these are not their preferences. Then if anyone picks up Baylor, Kansas State or Iowa State it becomes very doable. Heck if Texas goes to the ACC as a hybrid the SEC could still pull it off by adding Baylor as the second Texas entry into the SEC.

So, while all of this is speculation, and Texas and OU could go essentially anywhere they please, I think in the end they will opt for the most money that they can earn while playing the games their fan bases want to see, and that's not in the PAC or Big 10. They in essence can have the cream of the old SWC plus the Oklahomas and Missouri by becoming the SEC West. It may not be their preferred option, but it is the one that balances their combined interests while still enhancing the bottom line.

I do agree with Jr that the ACC TV deal failure could blow the lid off of everything. That is a significant issue with future realignment.

Personally 10th & USAFMEDIC, I would prefer we expand out of the ACC. My dream conference would include Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Clemson to 20. You can drop Duke and add N.C State if you like and drop Georgia Tech and add Virginia Tech if you like (although Ga Tech adds much more to the SECU) but the point is that is a truly "Southeastern Conference." It adds academic and basketball strength without diluting football because 2 of the 6 are strong in football, two are middling, and 2 are relatively weak. That keeps the SEC better balanced than expansion from the West.

When I lay out the Western scenario it is purely based on dollars. If we can't expand out of the ACC but can add two top 10 brands (including the consensus #1 brand), enhance our academics, strengthen our markets, and even enhance our status as the top football conference by absorbing the best of what has until this year been considered by many to be the second best college football conference, then I think that is exactly what Slive will shoot for and with really few objections. To quote the Godfather, "after all gentlemen we are not communists." I don't lay out that scenario to piss you guys off, but just because without ACC teams with which to expand the ones from the West that enhance our bottom line the most are the ones I listed (other than maybe Kansas and they don't fit with us at all.)

When this stuff got started again in 1992 the plan was to add Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State and Clemson. Clemson said no so we got South Carolina. Florida State backed out so we got Arkansas. Texas and A&M couldn't get untangled enough to make the move at the time. But, all things being equal the Eastern schools fit us better. But if that fails business sense tells me we will go to max out our objectives with whomever best fits the required categories. Texas, Oklahoma, (Okie State), and West Virginia would do that. They aren't what I want, but they would make us more money and enhance our image.

What if Oklahoma and Texas want each other more than they want the B1G or the SEC? The Sooners and the Longhorns may want to be the UNC and Clemson of their own league - instead of a member of the supporting cast.

Texas is too proud to follow in the footsteps of Texas A&M - they'd never hear the end of it in Austin, TX. Texas can get everything they want without being near Texas A&M.

I think the Longhorns did make a huge mistake in not accommodating Missouri and Nebraska more than they have - but I do not think it is a fatal mistake going forward.

Texas is not a piece that you can just pick up and move. Neither is Oklahoma, for that matter - and the two of them dovetailed together form the nucleus for an all-sports conference.

(09-23-2013 04:02 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that imperfect as it may be, the ACC may prove to be more resilient than many think that it is. I certainly don't see it getting parsed out prior to the expiration of its GoR.

As for the Big 12, our issues (particularly in terms of markets/footprint) have been rehashed many times. At the same time, it has 2 strong football anchors and 1 strong basketball anchor, matched with a number of schools that are seen (rightly or wrongly) as less-than-marquee brands. That makes a large-scale GoR-buster raid unlikely, so I think that it's likely to remain intact at least until close to the expiration of the GoR. As that gets close, it may be time to sit back with some popcorn, certainly.

We will see if you feel the same way once the media starts talking about what is going on during the NCAA Convention in January. We will probably have more media leaks before that even happens.

(09-23-2013 07:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What if Oklahoma and Texas want each other more than they want the B1G or the SEC? The Sooners and the Longhorns may want to be the UNC and Clemson of their own league - instead of a member of the supporting cast.

Texas is too proud to follow in the footsteps of Texas A&M - they'd never hear the end of it in Austin, TX. Texas can get everything they want without being near Texas A&M.

I think the Longhorns did make a huge mistake in not accommodating Missouri and Nebraska more than they have - but I do not think it is a fatal mistake going forward.

Texas is not a piece that you can just pick up and move. Neither is Oklahoma, for that matter - and the two of them dovetailed together form the nucleus for an all-sports conference.

Oklahoma and Texas have had close relations well before the Big 12 was ever formed. That relationship was the basis of forming up the conference. They do not need the conference in order to maintain their relationship with each other. It is a false debate point that people use in terms of these schools needing to be in the same conference in order to have a relationship.

I would argue the point that there are now just as many schools, if not more, that Texas does not care one way or the other for in terms of maintaining relations with them.

I heard the same story as Medic, that A&M was voted in with 11 ayes and Vandy abstaining

(09-23-2013 07:26 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  What if Oklahoma and Texas want each other more than they want the B1G or the SEC? The Sooners and the Longhorns may want to be the UNC and Clemson of their own league - instead of a member of the supporting cast.

Texas is too proud to follow in the footsteps of Texas A&M - they'd never hear the end of it in Austin, TX. Texas can get everything they want without being near Texas A&M.

I think the Longhorns did make a huge mistake in not accommodating Missouri and Nebraska more than they have - but I do not think it is a fatal mistake going forward.

Texas is not a piece that you can just pick up and move. Neither is Oklahoma, for that matter - and the two of them dovetailed together form the nucleus for an all-sports conference.

Their issues are lack of peer institutions, dwindling interest in the schedules afforded them by those preferences you seem to indicate that they desire, and most of the fallout over Dodds will resolve those issues one way or the other. They didn't expand because there was nobody to add that would enhance their league, and because they wanted to keep their options open. Time will tell which is which. If it's peers and more compelling scheduling they will change conferences. If it is a fiefdom they desire then they will stay. Then maybe your Green Wave will one day get a shot at one of the two spots they add to get back to twelve. I think it will be the former but we will see.

An interesting idea for 10 yrs from now:

The Big 12 South + WVU merges with the southern ACC schools for an 18 team league

-UT/OU/OSU/TT/BU/TCU

-UNC/Duke/NCSU/Wake/UVA/VT

-CU/FSU/Miami/GT/UL/WVU

Here's another interesting problem with realignment:

With all of these conference being so big (and full of strong football programs), what are going to the long term effects of 10-11 win teams winning only 7-8 games a year?

Tennessee, Alabama, Ole Miss, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, and Auburn are all historically powerful programs with HUGE expectations attached to each. Now that South Carolina has picked it up, there is even more pressure at the top than ever. Don't you guys think that adding OU/Texas will have adverse effects since you're going to see a number of rather good teams just clobber each other every season?

JrSEC, Tulane has absolutely no place in the Big XII. I understand that UT-Austin and Baylor look kindly towards Tulane, but I think that's more of an institutional respect thing than a realignment thing. UT-Austin has a MASSIVE number of T-shirt fans that will NOT want to ever see Tulane on the schedule - even if Tulane wins 7-9 games a year.

I bet you there are some UT-Austin alumni who find us to be a very acceptable addition once the football team picks it up. Those are the few, however - and not the people UT-Austin must factor in as #1 when making a decision about the Big XII's future.

Alumni are a small portion of the massive UT-Austin support network.

Alumni are the DRIVING FORCE of the small Tulane University support network.

(09-24-2013 01:32 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Here's another interesting problem with realignment:

With all of these conference being so big (and full of strong football programs), what are going to the long term effects of 10-11 win teams winning only 7-8 games a year?

Tennessee, Alabama, Ole Miss, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, and Auburn are all historically powerful programs with HUGE expectations attached to each. Now that South Carolina has picked it up, there is even more pressure at the top than ever. Don't you guys think that adding OU/Texas will have adverse effects since you're going to see a number of rather good teams just clobber each other every season?

JrSEC, Tulane has absolutely no place in the Big XII. I understand that UT-Austin and Baylor look kindly towards Tulane, but I think that's more of an institutional respect thing than a realignment thing. UT-Austin has a MASSIVE number of T-shirt fans that will NOT want to ever see Tulane on the schedule - even if Tulane wins 7-9 games a year.

I bet you there are some UT-Austin alumni who find us to be a very acceptable addition once the football team picks it up. Those are the few, however - and not the people UT-Austin must factor in as #1 when making a decision about the Big XII's future.

Alumni are a small portion of the massive UT-Austin support network.

Alumni are the DRIVING FORCE of the small Tulane University support network.

While I agree there will be fallout from having a decline in overall records because of intensified competition, a reason I have argued for the inclusion of 72 minimum, the simple fact is that the old way of planning for championships will be dead in a few years. Eventually we will have 4 conference champions playing it off for the national title. All it requires is the elimination of the 5th wheel. When that day comes the only thing that will matter is winning your division. Win that division and you get into your 4 team conference playoff. Win that and you are in the final four. All of it will be decided on the field and the need for patsies to pad stats will be gone. So in the end the strategies will shift and will be focused upon one thing winning the division. When that happens it will be like being a member of the old 6 team conferences way back in the day, only this time the local newspaper won't declare champions the teams will have to earn it through competition.

It will finally be where it always should have been, without biased or indifferent polls, without conference politics, without computer generated power rankings and without network preferences. Now I want that kind of structure at all levels of college athletics. I hope we get it.

(09-24-2013 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  An interesting idea for 10 yrs from now:

The Big 12 South + WVU merges with the southern ACC schools for an 18 team league

-UT/OU/OSU/TT/BU/TCU

-UNC/Duke/NCSU/Wake/UVA/VT

-CU/FSU/Miami/GT/UL/WVU

Here are the problems with that idea:

1. How can you determine a conference champion when you have three divisions? Splitting the crew into four pods would make more sense.

2. Where are ND, Syracuse, BC, and Pitt going to fit in this setup?

3. There is a massive gap between the Big XII South and anyone in the SEC. Cross-divisional games would have to be limited going forward.

Here's how I would do it:

North: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, UConn, Cincinnati
Southwest: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, OSU
Atlantic: Miami (FL), GT, Clemson, VT, FSU
Coastal: UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, UVA

TCU goes to the SEC where I think they'll fit in quite well.

(09-24-2013 03:06 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:48 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  An interesting idea for 10 yrs from now:

The Big 12 South + WVU merges with the southern ACC schools for an 18 team league

-UT/OU/OSU/TT/BU/TCU

-UNC/Duke/NCSU/Wake/UVA/VT

-CU/FSU/Miami/GT/UL/WVU

Here are the problems with that idea:

1. How can you determine a conference champion when you have three divisions? Splitting the crew into four pods would make more sense.

2. Where are ND, Syracuse, BC, and Pitt going to fit in this setup?

3. There is a massive gap between the Big XII South and anyone in the SEC. Cross-divisional games would have to be limited going forward.

Here's how I would do it:

North: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, UConn, Cincinnati
Southwest: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, OSU
Atlantic: Miami (FL), GT, Clemson, VT, FSU
Coastal: UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, UVA

TCU goes to the SEC where I think they'll fit in quite well.

18 works quite easily. You have 3 divisions of 6 geographically based to save on travel and preserve rivalries. The team with the best overall record who is not a divisional champion gets the 4th spot in the playoffs. This helps to balance conferences because it is usually the strongest division that gets the wild card spot.

There won't be any division of these teams that 10th mentions ever. The reason is real simple. If the ACC isn't breached it's not going anywhere and they won't want anything from the Big 12 but Kansas which will likely go to the Big 10, Oklahoma, and Texas. Since the PAC, SEC and Big 10 offer more money, a lot more for the SEC and Big 10, I doubt anyone from the Big 12 will go to the ACC except for Texas if they can go as an independent.

If as 10th suggests the Northern part of the ACC is no longer with them there will be nothing that Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech would want to associate with from the Big 12 other than Texas or Kansas. Without Syracuse, N.D., or Pitt I would think that North Carolina would take Slive's offer for them and Duke and that Georgia Tech would be snatched up by the SEC to keep the Big 10 out of Atlanta. Virginia might come along with Duke and North Carolina, but could just as easily go to the Big 10.

The SEC is looking to build its SECU (SEC version of the CIC). T.C.U. will not get an SEC invite and in no way fits our profile. Small, private, poor football attendance, and an academic rating of 97. We are looking for enhancements. If it came to it Baylor would get a more serious look than T.C.U.

But the bottom line here is if anything causes losses to the ACC's ranks the top schools will move to the top money and better security because there won't be any schools to add that would enhance their shrinking profile.

There could possibly be a merger of the schools in the Big 12 and ACC that are not AAU to form a viable conference. But Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech won't be among them.

If you think we'd raise hell about letting in UT it would be a tempest in a teapot compared over how we'd feel about letting in those little ****s from Waco after they tried every dirty trick they could think of to try and keep us in the Big Dumpster Fire

(09-24-2013 04:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If you think we'd raise hell about letting in UT it would be a tempest in a teapot compared over how we'd feel about letting in those little ****s from Waco after they tried every dirty trick they could think of to try and keep us in the Big Dumpster Fire

10th, I'm glad A&M is in the SEC, but we aren't taking T.C.U.. They have small attendance, aren't proficient in all sports (although their baseball is good), are private and don't fit our profile, and have academics at a level we aren't interested in. I held Baylor up as a comparison because we aren't likely to take them either but they have better attendance, better athletics, and better academics. The suggestion of T.C.U. ticked me off. But while we are on the topic just who from the Big 12 would you approve of? As far as I can tell you hate them all. If we don't grow from the ACC which is my preference just who would be acceptable from the Big 12? The only ones that fit our profile are Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The only one I could see us taking that was not in that profile might be Oklahoma State and that would be stretch.

The best thing that could happen to the Big 12 would be for the PAC to take 6 to 8 of them with the Big 10 picking up any slack. That puts them out of their misery and earns all of us 1.1 million more per team in playoff money we don't have to split. Then if the Big 10 and SEC coordinated their efforts on the ACC we might be able to get who we really want.

But January is coming and we will know more. But in this business all contingencies are explored and only those who fit are accepted. For all the speculating that I and others have done, some in fun and some in earnest, it boils down to this (and this is dead serious) the only teams the SEC will accept outright are: North Carolina, (Duke if a requirement of North Carolina), Virginia, Oklahoma, and possibly Texas. The schools we might accept under the right circumstances are: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and more remotely Oklahoma State.

I don't see us taking T.C.U., Kansas State, Baylor, West Virginia, Texas Tech, Iowa State, or Kansas. I don't see us taking Miami, Wake Forest, Louisville, or any of the Northern ACC schools.

I don't see us caring what other conferences think if and when we make a move. We are the top conference in athletics, about on par with the most profitable overall, and seeking to close the gap on research revenue. It is the latter that will take precedent. That is why Texas and Georgia Tech are not off of the list of possible candidates and why Virginia and North Carolina would be preferred over N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Clemson and F.S.U. are still listed because of state political issues and because they lead the ACC in attendance, are among their most marketable brands, are strong athletically, and are profitable. But it would take a great many things falling into place before we would consider them. I would think that if we move to 16 it would be with North Carolina and Duke. If we move to 18 it will be with North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. Only at 20 would F.S.U. and Clemson come into play because it would take the SEC taking 6 from the ACC and the Big 10 taking 6 from the ACC to dissolve that conference and void their GOR.

What I see as more likely is a move by the Big 10 to 18 and by the SEC to 18. With the Big 10 taking Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Connecticut.

Then what you would have would be a new ACC or Big 12 or whatever of:

Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

If Notre Dame goes Big 10 then switch UConn to the new conference. The only reason that the Big 10 would be interested in UConn is Basketball and Hockey (seriously).

If the PAC decides they want a piece of Texas and T.C.U. and Tech go to the PAC then add a directional Florida school and Houston or Tulane to the group. But the SEC is going after AAU schools period. Our fall back will be top name brand schools in states that we need, or simply top name brand schools with a strong national and regional following. We aren't taking anyone that is not in the top 100 academically if we can help it. N.C. State and Oklahoma State are the only two I even mentioned that aren't top 100. Oklahoma is tied with several for 101st.

That's the no BS, no wild speculation, no playful speculation, long and short of it. Now we wait.

Why just "possibly Texas"? Ah... aTm?

(09-24-2013 05:52 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Why just "possibly Texas"? Ah... aTm?

Exactly. It depends on whether the Texas A&M president has the same vitriol that some Aggie fans have. My bet is that it would be too good of an addition from a business and academic standpoint to say no and that the more business minded leadership of the University would realize that, whether fans do or not. The SEC votes on new members. 3/4 is required for membership but, that is for the informal vote. If you are outvoted informally you are expected to be unanimous in the official vote for PR's sake. So therefore SEC members never have a vote against them officially.
Personally even if the A&M president voted against Texas, I think the the Horns would carry the vote in favor. But if it comes to that we will find out won't we.

Any A&M president who voters yes for UT would be quickly out of a job. It's just that simple.

But don't mistake it, I don't want any former or current B12 South teams in the SEC. Having us selling the SEC and them selling trips to Ames, Stillwater, Waco, Manhattan, Lubbock and Lawrence is a huge advantage that we'd be stupid to vote "yes" for no matter how much money it was worth because no amount of money can make up for losing that advantage.

But we only have one vote. If everybody else wants that then that's what will happen.

(09-24-2013 06:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Any A&M president who voters yes for UT would be quickly out of a job. It's just that simple.

But don't mistake it, I don't want any former or current B12 South teams in the SEC. Having us selling the SEC and them selling trips to Ames, Stillwater, Waco, Manhattan, Lubbock and Lawrence is a huge advantage that we'd be stupid to vote "yes" for no matter how much money it was worth because no amount of money can make up for losing that advantage.

But we only have one vote. If everybody else wants that then that's what will happen.

It really comes down to which you would rather have:

Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina West Virginia

OR

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Duke, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia

OR

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina

I do prefer the second one.

Option B all day long

Another new 15 million to the footprint is vital for keeping pace with the B1G and will net us far more money than double down or small market teams do

Why are you so convinced that Delany wants to turn the B1G into a giant conglomerate of schools that don't exactly have everything in common with each other? What happens when the TV ratings fall a bit under what we thought they'd be?

The SEC is "just right" at 14 in my opinion - and should only go to 16 if it can net TWO of these four states in the process: North Carolina, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas.

2012-2013 TV ratings have shown us that Texas A&M is actually big enough to carry a significant number of Texas TV sets. You don't HAVE to take another Texas school unless you REALLY like them as an institution and don't mind sharing. There is still plenty of value left in the well (between AAC and Big XII schools) - but I don't think there is a need to go back to it for a LONG time.

I do not think that it is a smart move for Slive to offend the one school that has opened the doors of Texas football to the SEC. I think that the correct move for the SEC is to build a presence in North Carolina and Virginia. Adding two from NCSU/UNC/UVA/VT would offend nobody and bring a potential SEC network into many, many more homes.