I not rigidly opposed to Baylor at 17, but prefer TCU/SMU due to the Metroplex location. But if any of those 3 are taken, then 18 has to be an East Coast addition. I would definitely be opposed to Houston and so would A&M and LSU.

(10-23-2013 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

WHOA!!
Hold it right there JR.
Why does the SEC get Baylor?

We don't have a Baptist school or a green team and I can't really think of too many reasons other than those.

Give me Baylor and NC State.

(10-23-2013 09:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

WHOA!!
Hold it right there JR.
Why does the SEC get Baylor?

We don't have a Baptist school or a green team and I can't really think of too many reasons other than those.

We don't have a green team either, but we do have Wake Forest.

The Baptists at Wake Forest still pray before a game, the Methodists in Durham don't. We used to pray before the games in Chapel Hill, but now the government won't let us.

(10-23-2013 03:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

XLance, I still say that the ACC and SEC should work together to close out the Big 12. If the SEC takes 5 and another and the ACC takes 5 we can do it. SEC: Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Cincinnati.
ACC: Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and West Virginia. We both move to 20, partner, and just don't worry about what happens to the PAC and Big 10.

If Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers and Connecticut want to join the ACC you can move to 24.
If Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin want to join the SEC we can move to 24.
The PAC can have the rest!

WHOA!!
Hold it right there JR.
Why does the SEC get Baylor?

We don't have a Baptist school or a green team and I can't really think of too many reasons other than those.

We don't have a green team either, but we do have Wake Forest.

The Baptists at Wake Forest still pray before a game, the Methodists in Durham don't. We used to pray before the games in Chapel Hill, but now the government won't let us.

Yet another of those vanishing constitutional rights. They keep seeping out of the leaky bucket of American freedoms and the public doesn't seem to notice or care.

The only Texas schools we're going to be OK with are TCU and SMU (which serves the SEC cause better anyway since it allows us to plant the flag in the B12s home city)

Baylor is especially not OK for us after the lawsuit to try and keep us in the Little 10. They will never get a yes vote from A&M.

All the others are simply non-starters though not as vehemently so..but will still get a "nay" vote from us.

(10-23-2013 05:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The only Texas schools we're going to be OK with are TCU and SMU (which serves the SEC cause better anyway since it allows us to plant the flag in the B12s home city)

Baylor is especially not OK for us after the lawsuit to try and keep us in the Little 10. They will never get a yes vote from A&M.

All the others are simply non-starters though not as vehemently so..but will still get a "nay" vote from us.

I'm not so sure you have to worry about that anymore, but we'll see.

I think there is a reasonable chance that Virginia Tech and North Carolina wind up in the SEC and that Virginia and perhaps Duke wind up in the Big 10. And perhaps Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State wind up in the PAC.

Then a new conference would be created out of the remaining ACC & Big 12 teams.

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

If ND remains a hybrid then T.C.U. slides into the bottom grouping, Baylor slips into the FSU & Miami group, Clemson slides into the Wake group, and West Virginia moves up to ND's spot.

That gives us 4 conferences of 16 full members with regional groupings plus ND. No more Big 12 teams to the SEC and 10th get's his dream scenario.

Absolutely! :)

(10-23-2013 06:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 05:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The only Texas schools we're going to be OK with are TCU and SMU (which serves the SEC cause better anyway since it allows us to plant the flag in the B12s home city)

Baylor is especially not OK for us after the lawsuit to try and keep us in the Little 10. They will never get a yes vote from A&M.

All the others are simply non-starters though not as vehemently so..but will still get a "nay" vote from us.

I'm not so sure you have to worry about that anymore, but we'll see.

I think there is a reasonable chance that Virginia Tech and North Carolina wind up in the SEC and that Virginia and perhaps Duke wind up in the Big 10. And perhaps Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State wind up in the PAC.

Then a new conference would be created out of the remaining ACC & Big 12 teams.

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

If ND remains a hybrid then T.C.U. slides into the bottom grouping, Baylor slips into the FSU & Miami group, Clemson slides into the Wake group, and West Virginia moves up to ND's spot.

That gives us 4 conferences of 16 full members with regional groupings plus ND. No more Big 12 teams to the SEC and 10th get's his dream scenario.

JR, JR, JR,.... reasonable chance that Virginia Tech and North Carolina end up in the SEC? I don't want to crush your dreams, but you have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Just a quick note since the conversation is headed toward UVA and UNC...

I know quite a few people from Virginia, and my mother was born in Radford, which is near Blacksburg. The hottest thread on the main board right now about the Fred Glass comments veered toward the culture of Virginia, and it makes me a bit sad that a dirty bastardization of a culture, summed up as "DC", is overtaking it to a point that people are not comfortable describing Virginia as Southern any longer. The "DC" culture is not anything really... it is the lack of a culture created by those that make their careers off of taxes in one way or another. I am not saying anything at all about the individuals in this culture, just the culture itself. It is too bad that this culture has seeped out of the District of Columbia into border states, which I think is exactly what the founders of DC did NOT want to happen when establishing those boundaries in the first place and giving them individual representation.

It is not a North vs. South, Democrat vs. Republican, Urban vs. Rural issue for me. As part of my heritage, I hate that much of Virginia does not consider themselves Southern any longer. However, I would rather them describe themselves as Northern or New Englanders than what they are now, which is just a vacuum culture. As I've said before, I want UVA more to reconnect with the state of Virginia than for any objective improvements in academics, revenue, athletics, or whatever. I think having all of our schools in conference together has helped solidify and advance what we all consider to be "Southern" even with all of the different flavors under that term. That is a big part of why I see the overlap of TV footprints as well worth it in the long run if we are truly working toward the best possible culture. The additions of FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Va Tech, and Louisville (to some degree) would not likely increase revenue funding per school in pure TV dollars, but keeping one of the few public institutions which are still controlled mostly at the state level pays off in so many other ways. Anyway, this is not a proper rant for the main board, but I figured some of you would empathize.

(10-24-2013 09:31 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Just a quick note since the conversation is headed toward UVA and UNC...

I know quite a few people from Virginia, and my mother was born in Radford, which is near Blacksburg. The hottest thread on the main board right now about the Fred Glass comments veered toward the culture of Virginia, and it makes me a bit sad that a dirty bastardization of a culture, summed up as "DC", is overtaking it to a point that people are not comfortable describing Virginia as Southern any longer. The "DC" culture is not anything really... it is the lack of a culture created by those that make their careers off of taxes in one way or another. I am not saying anything at all about the individuals in this culture, just the culture itself. It is too bad that this culture has seeped out of the District of Columbia into border states, which I think is exactly what the founders of DC did NOT want to happen when establishing those boundaries in the first place and giving them individual representation.

It is not a North vs. South, Democrat vs. Republican, Urban vs. Rural issue for me. As part of my heritage, I hate that much of Virginia does not consider themselves Southern any longer. However, I would rather them describe themselves as Northern or New Englanders than what they are now, which is just a vacuum culture. As I've said before, I want UVA more to reconnect with the state of Virginia than for any objective improvements in academics, revenue, athletics, or whatever. I think having all of our schools in conference together has helped solidify and advance what we all consider to be "Southern" even with all of the different flavors under that term. That is a big part of why I see the overlap of TV footprints as well worth it in the long run if we are truly working toward the best possible culture. The additions of FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Va Tech, and Louisville (to some degree) would not likely increase revenue funding per school in pure TV dollars, but keeping one of the few public institutions which are still controlled mostly at the state level pays off in so many other ways. Anyway, this is not a proper rant for the main board, but I figured some of you would empathize.

BBB, the rant is appreciated and I would hardly call it a rant. The simple truth is we are losing our culture everywhere. It is lost in the ridiculous things they teach as culture in our public grade schools, it is lost in places like Oklahoma and Florida when university presidents are procured to plug into the Washington first money and it will continue at all Universities as state funding gets harder and harder to come by and the Federal socialism spreads. The largest employers in most states now are federal and state employers including education. Real Americans creating and performing real jobs have been outsourced, taxed out of existence, and bought out by the corporations that pay DC to do what they do. The America I grew up in is long gone and the American of the 80's and 90's is fast disappearing. When government and state workers and those deriving their income from grants plus the unemployed outnumber the regular work force (and we are damned close) this is what every bureaucracy becomes and in all cultures throughout history it is one of the last stages before collapse. The big problem for us today is that most of the European and a few of the Asian cultures are either in the same stage or nearing it so the next collapse will be global.

Couple government waste and corruption with an out of control global population growth, the resultant pollution and strain upon vital commodities and resources and you have a recipe for catastrophe. Have a nice day! JR

(10-24-2013 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 09:31 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Just a quick note since the conversation is headed toward UVA and UNC...

I know quite a few people from Virginia, and my mother was born in Radford, which is near Blacksburg. The hottest thread on the main board right now about the Fred Glass comments veered toward the culture of Virginia, and it makes me a bit sad that a dirty bastardization of a culture, summed up as "DC", is overtaking it to a point that people are not comfortable describing Virginia as Southern any longer. The "DC" culture is not anything really... it is the lack of a culture created by those that make their careers off of taxes in one way or another. I am not saying anything at all about the individuals in this culture, just the culture itself. It is too bad that this culture has seeped out of the District of Columbia into border states, which I think is exactly what the founders of DC did NOT want to happen when establishing those boundaries in the first place and giving them individual representation.

It is not a North vs. South, Democrat vs. Republican, Urban vs. Rural issue for me. As part of my heritage, I hate that much of Virginia does not consider themselves Southern any longer. However, I would rather them describe themselves as Northern or New Englanders than what they are now, which is just a vacuum culture. As I've said before, I want UVA more to reconnect with the state of Virginia than for any objective improvements in academics, revenue, athletics, or whatever. I think having all of our schools in conference together has helped solidify and advance what we all consider to be "Southern" even with all of the different flavors under that term. That is a big part of why I see the overlap of TV footprints as well worth it in the long run if we are truly working toward the best possible culture. The additions of FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Va Tech, and Louisville (to some degree) would not likely increase revenue funding per school in pure TV dollars, but keeping one of the few public institutions which are still controlled mostly at the state level pays off in so many other ways. Anyway, this is not a proper rant for the main board, but I figured some of you would empathize.

BBB, the rant is appreciated and I would hardly call it a rant. The simple truth is we are losing our culture everywhere. It is lost in the ridiculous things they teach as culture in our public grade schools, it is lost in places like Oklahoma and Florida when university presidents are procured to plug into the Washington first money and it will continue at all Universities as state funding gets harder and harder to come by and the Federal socialism spreads. The largest employers in most states now are federal and state employers including education. Real Americans creating and performing real jobs have been outsourced, taxed out of existence, and bought out by the corporations that pay DC to do what they do. The America I grew up in is long gone and the American of the 80's and 90's is fast disappearing. When government and state workers and those deriving their income from grants plus the unemployed outnumber the regular work force (and we are damned close) this is what every bureaucracy becomes and in all cultures throughout history it is one of the last stages before collapse. The big problem for us today is that most of the European and a few of the Asian cultures are either in the same stage or nearing it so the next collapse will be global.

Couple government waste and corruption with an out of control global population growth, the resultant pollution and strain upon vital commodities and resources and you have a recipe for catastrophe. Have a nice day! JR

You could not have ended your comments any better, JR

I've talked with you about this before. If there was a country that offered more economic and social liberty than the U.S.A, I would strongly consider moving there. My loved ones, for the most part, would do the same. The problem is as you stated... those places do not exist. Chile, Hong Kong, and Estonia are trying at some level, but each has their issues, just as we do here. All things being equal, this is home, and we have to do what we can to preserve it. In the back of my mind, though, I have to remember that most of us are English, German, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Brazilian.. etc. in blood that came here generations ago to seek what we could not find at "home". Home is where you can pursue your happiness. I hope that can be the U.S.A. and more specifically the South, but we have a lot of work to do.

On the bright side, many in my generation that are part of the non-subsidized workforce that you described above are not ideologically aligned with the government party (I see all of them, in general, as the same party). The downside, again, as you stated JR, is that we are becoming outnumbered. In most things, it just takes 51% percent to make a decision. That old joke to women that they could control the world if they could all just agree on the same thing is lighthearted, but the demographics of where American workers (or non-workers) draw their income is coming very close to that realization.

(10-24-2013 10:57 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 09:31 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Just a quick note since the conversation is headed toward UVA and UNC...

I know quite a few people from Virginia, and my mother was born in Radford, which is near Blacksburg. The hottest thread on the main board right now about the Fred Glass comments veered toward the culture of Virginia, and it makes me a bit sad that a dirty bastardization of a culture, summed up as "DC", is overtaking it to a point that people are not comfortable describing Virginia as Southern any longer. The "DC" culture is not anything really... it is the lack of a culture created by those that make their careers off of taxes in one way or another. I am not saying anything at all about the individuals in this culture, just the culture itself. It is too bad that this culture has seeped out of the District of Columbia into border states, which I think is exactly what the founders of DC did NOT want to happen when establishing those boundaries in the first place and giving them individual representation.

It is not a North vs. South, Democrat vs. Republican, Urban vs. Rural issue for me. As part of my heritage, I hate that much of Virginia does not consider themselves Southern any longer. However, I would rather them describe themselves as Northern or New Englanders than what they are now, which is just a vacuum culture. As I've said before, I want UVA more to reconnect with the state of Virginia than for any objective improvements in academics, revenue, athletics, or whatever. I think having all of our schools in conference together has helped solidify and advance what we all consider to be "Southern" even with all of the different flavors under that term. That is a big part of why I see the overlap of TV footprints as well worth it in the long run if we are truly working toward the best possible culture. The additions of FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Va Tech, and Louisville (to some degree) would not likely increase revenue funding per school in pure TV dollars, but keeping one of the few public institutions which are still controlled mostly at the state level pays off in so many other ways. Anyway, this is not a proper rant for the main board, but I figured some of you would empathize.

BBB, the rant is appreciated and I would hardly call it a rant. The simple truth is we are losing our culture everywhere. It is lost in the ridiculous things they teach as culture in our public grade schools, it is lost in places like Oklahoma and Florida when university presidents are procured to plug into the Washington first money and it will continue at all Universities as state funding gets harder and harder to come by and the Federal socialism spreads. The largest employers in most states now are federal and state employers including education. Real Americans creating and performing real jobs have been outsourced, taxed out of existence, and bought out by the corporations that pay DC to do what they do. The America I grew up in is long gone and the American of the 80's and 90's is fast disappearing. When government and state workers and those deriving their income from grants plus the unemployed outnumber the regular work force (and we are damned close) this is what every bureaucracy becomes and in all cultures throughout history it is one of the last stages before collapse. The big problem for us today is that most of the European and a few of the Asian cultures are either in the same stage or nearing it so the next collapse will be global.

Couple government waste and corruption with an out of control global population growth, the resultant pollution and strain upon vital commodities and resources and you have a recipe for catastrophe. Have a nice day! JR

You could not have ended your comments any better, JR

I've talked with you about this before. If there was a country that offered more economic and social liberty than the U.S.A, I would strongly consider moving there. My loved ones, for the most part, would do the same. The problem is as you stated... those places do not exist. Chile, Hong Kong, and Estonia are trying at some level, but each has their issues, just as we do here. All things being equal, this is home, and we have to do what we can to preserve it. In the back of my mind, though, I have to remember that most of us are English, German, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Brazilian.. etc. in blood that came here generations ago to seek what we could not find at "home". Home is where you can pursue your happiness. I hope that can be the U.S.A. and more specifically the South, but we have a lot of work to do.

On the bright side, many in my generation that are part of the non-subsidized workforce that you described above are not ideologically aligned with the government party (I see all of them, in general, as the same party). The downside, again, as you stated JR, is that we are becoming outnumbered. In most things, it just takes 51% percent to make a decision. That old joke to women that they could control the world if they could all just agree on the same thing is lighthearted, but the demographics of where American workers (or non-workers) draw their income is coming very close to that realization.

Very true BBB. Those in power want us to think this is Red vs Blue, liberal vs conservative, Black vs White, Black & White vs Brown, pro abortion vs anti abortion, etc. It's not. It's small business and worker versus bureaucracy. The frugal vs the wasteful would be another way to look at it. But as long as we the people are caught up in the phony divisions we will never unify to defeat our real enemy.

There are only two objectives that we must achieve to restore balance.
1. No corporate contributions for elections. Since a corporation really is not a person, only persons should be allowed to contribute to candidates. And anyone acquiring the requisite number of registered voters signatures should be placed on the State or Federal ballot without having to have 50 grass roots organization to do so especially since DEM's and REP's don't have to do so. The exemptions for the DEM/REP's are only about 20 years old but have fundamentally changed access to office. Level the ground for election qualifications and the DEM/REP party can't control nominations and thereby control elections. And we need to return to a time when media was expected as a public service to cover all candidates for an election. For over a century our elections were essentially free. You could buy advertisements, but your debates, speeches, etc were covered for free.

2. Go back an enforce or reinstate TR's anti-trust laws. They were put into place to preserve the rights of citizens and preserve the government from overt tampering during the time of the first rise of corporations.

In these two objectives are all that we need. Elect enough representatives and senators and president's who are free of the DEM/REP party tag and control and eventually you will reverse the Supreme Court's decision that corporations have the rights of individuals. When that happens you can take back your country. But, in your lifetime you will witness a full court press by corporations to defeat you. Most jobs are now corporate jobs. Any opposition to their total domination will lose their paycheck and find themselves unemployable. Their control over banking, jobs, government, and now their ability to spy on you gives them all the tools they need to dominate. And where there is an entity without a soul and that entities sole reason for existence is profit and it operates without empathy or a sense of order or justice, you have evil in its purest form. Give it the power to prohibit your buying and selling without its mark guaranteeing that you serve it and I think you know where I'm headed. It is not made in the image of the creator, but out of the design of man. It has the privileges of person, but no soul. It is what it is, a beast.

In light of the Big 12's declining a pro growth Oliver Luck and taking a house cleaning Steve Patterson who has not only Texas ties, but is coming from the PAC let's assume that a partition of the Big 12 is possible in the coming months. I have only found 1 reasonable solution to this problem and one less reasonable alternative.

The Big 10 may be interested in Kansas and possibly Connecticut.
There are some in the ACC (and it is somewhat conflicted) that might be interested in West Virginia.
If Texas went to the PAC and the SEC added Oklahoma and Kansas State it would only take Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to make it happen.

If the ACC reneged on West Virginia the SEC might be able to make it happen by going to 18 and taking West Virginia and one other, possibly from the Big 12, or possibly not.

(11-05-2013 10:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In light of the Big 12's declining a pro growth Oliver Luck and taking a house cleaning Steve Patterson who has not only Texas ties, but is coming from the PAC let's assume that a partition of the Big 12 is possible in the coming months. I have only found 1 reasonable solution to this problem and one less reasonable alternative.

The Big 10 may be interested in Kansas and possibly Connecticut.
There are some in the ACC (and it is somewhat conflicted) that might be interested in West Virginia.
If Texas went to the PAC and the SEC added Oklahoma and Kansas State it would only take Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to make it happen.

If the ACC reneged on West Virginia the SEC might be able to make it happen by going to 18 and taking West Virginia and one other, possibly from the Big 12, or possibly not.

Indeed, I've been letting the air clear on the main board about the Texas decision for Patterson. Some of the theories probably have some validity, but it is more nuanced than they are presenting. Patterson= Texas to the PAC is too simplistic, but I think it does signal a change in approach from Texas. If there is any truth to the reports that Patterson was chosen over Luck because he is willing to be the hatchet man on Brown and Barnes, it does signal what we knew: the Texas administration knows what needs to be done but is too cowardly to do it themselves. There is a whole segment of "streamlining" consultants in this country that are in lucrative careers because corporations act the same way.

Jimmy Sexton, of course, is using this to get Saban a pay raise, and it does not hurt for the Texas Regents to have a true insider to understand the PAC and their true strategy moving forward. Larry Scott is probably disappointed in this move because Patterson knows what they have been planning to lure Texas, so UT can now up the ante.

West Virginia to the ACC is probably making more sense to them based on recent developments. The ACC lost the academic prestige card when they added Louisville, so adding an academic peer for Louisville is a secondary issue at this point. WVU is a tremendous buddy for Louisville, and they have some bad blood with Pitt and Va. Tech, which will help people give a darn about ACC northern football.

(11-06-2013 10:03 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 10:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In light of the Big 12's declining a pro growth Oliver Luck and taking a house cleaning Steve Patterson who has not only Texas ties, but is coming from the PAC let's assume that a partition of the Big 12 is possible in the coming months. I have only found 1 reasonable solution to this problem and one less reasonable alternative.

The Big 10 may be interested in Kansas and possibly Connecticut.
There are some in the ACC (and it is somewhat conflicted) that might be interested in West Virginia.
If Texas went to the PAC and the SEC added Oklahoma and Kansas State it would only take Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to make it happen.

If the ACC reneged on West Virginia the SEC might be able to make it happen by going to 18 and taking West Virginia and one other, possibly from the Big 12, or possibly not.

Indeed, I've been letting the air clear on the main board about the Texas decision for Patterson. Some of the theories probably have some validity, but it is more nuanced than they are presenting. Patterson= Texas to the PAC is too simplistic, but I think it does signal a change in approach from Texas. If there is any truth to the reports that Patterson was chosen over Luck because he is willing to be the hatchet man on Brown and Barnes, it does signal what we knew: the Texas administration knows what needs to be done but is too cowardly to do it themselves. There is a whole segment of "streamlining" consultants in this country that are in lucrative careers because corporations act the same way.

Jimmy Sexton, of course, is using this to get Saban a pay raise, and it does not hurt for the Texas Regents to have a true insider to understand the PAC and their true strategy moving forward. Larry Scott is probably disappointed in this move because Patterson knows what they have been planning to lure Texas, so UT can now up the ante.

West Virginia to the ACC is probably making more sense to them based on recent developments. The ACC lost the academic prestige card when they added Louisville, so adding an academic peer for Louisville is a secondary issue at this point. WVU is a tremendous buddy for Louisville, and they have some bad blood with Pitt and Va. Tech, which will help people give a darn about ACC northern football.

BBB, I PM'd He1nous about this. The Patterson move signals a couple of things clearly. He will clean house and has been brought aboard to do so. I wouldn't be surprised to see Dodds leaver earlier than he had hoped. The president at Texas will be under fire too. The regents just need 1 more vote to oust him. There is a Texas contingent, which contrary to prevailing wisdom on this board want the SEC considered because of geography and football status (and Aggy angst). The governor may be included in this crowd if rumors are to be believed.

Patterson has strong ties to Saban and yes Sexton will play that up for all its worth in Tuscaloosa. I just see Saban retiring before I see him taking up another challenge, especially one as harried by boosters as Texas.

The second clear thing to me about Patterson is that he won't be pro growth for the Big 12. If Saban were to be hired I don't see a PAC move in the offing. I could see a move to the Big 10 or SEC in those circumstances. If they do succeed removing the Texas president I don't see a move to the PAC in the offing at all.

It's going to be a very interesting few months, and perhaps definitive.

If Texas does move to the PAC the only thing I know is that it will take 8 others finding new homes to do it and you just can't split them up that easily. I figure the SEC won't cooperate without one of the prizes. The Big 10 the same. I really think Iowa State has a good shot at the PAC grouping with Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State and that the privates will be the two left out.

(11-06-2013 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:03 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 10:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In light of the Big 12's declining a pro growth Oliver Luck and taking a house cleaning Steve Patterson who has not only Texas ties, but is coming from the PAC let's assume that a partition of the Big 12 is possible in the coming months. I have only found 1 reasonable solution to this problem and one less reasonable alternative.

The Big 10 may be interested in Kansas and possibly Connecticut.
There are some in the ACC (and it is somewhat conflicted) that might be interested in West Virginia.
If Texas went to the PAC and the SEC added Oklahoma and Kansas State it would only take Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to make it happen.

If the ACC reneged on West Virginia the SEC might be able to make it happen by going to 18 and taking West Virginia and one other, possibly from the Big 12, or possibly not.

Indeed, I've been letting the air clear on the main board about the Texas decision for Patterson. Some of the theories probably have some validity, but it is more nuanced than they are presenting. Patterson= Texas to the PAC is too simplistic, but I think it does signal a change in approach from Texas. If there is any truth to the reports that Patterson was chosen over Luck because he is willing to be the hatchet man on Brown and Barnes, it does signal what we knew: the Texas administration knows what needs to be done but is too cowardly to do it themselves. There is a whole segment of "streamlining" consultants in this country that are in lucrative careers because corporations act the same way.

Jimmy Sexton, of course, is using this to get Saban a pay raise, and it does not hurt for the Texas Regents to have a true insider to understand the PAC and their true strategy moving forward. Larry Scott is probably disappointed in this move because Patterson knows what they have been planning to lure Texas, so UT can now up the ante.

West Virginia to the ACC is probably making more sense to them based on recent developments. The ACC lost the academic prestige card when they added Louisville, so adding an academic peer for Louisville is a secondary issue at this point. WVU is a tremendous buddy for Louisville, and they have some bad blood with Pitt and Va. Tech, which will help people give a darn about ACC northern football.

BBB, I PM'd He1nous about this. The Patterson move signals a couple of things clearly. He will clean house and has been brought aboard to do so. I wouldn't be surprised to see Dodds leaver earlier than he had hoped. The president at Texas will be under fire too. The regents just need 1 more vote to oust him. There is a Texas contingent, which contrary to prevailing wisdom on this board want the SEC considered because of geography and football status (and Aggy angst). The governor may be included in this crowd if rumors are to be believed.

Patterson has strong ties to Saban and yes Sexton will play that up for all its worth in Tuscaloosa. I just see Saban retiring before I see him taking up another challenge, especially one as harried by boosters as Texas.

The second clear thing to me about Patterson is that he won't be pro growth for the Big 12. If Saban were to be hired I don't see a PAC move in the offing. I could see a move to the Big 10 or SEC in those circumstances. If they do succeed removing the Texas president I don't see a move to the PAC in the offing at all.

It's going to be a very interesting few months, and perhaps definitive.

If Texas does move to the PAC the only thing I know is that it will take 8 others finding new homes to do it and you just can't split them up that easily. I figure the SEC won't cooperate without one of the prizes. The Big 10 the same. I really think Iowa State has a good shot at the PAC grouping with Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State and that the privates will be the two left out.

Interesting thoughts, JR. You keep up with the UT pulse as well as anyone, so if this is how to read the tea leaves, then things are definitely about to get interesting.

I know that PAC folks will disagree with me, but considering the landscape, I see value in adding Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State if UT, Oklahoma, and Kansas have opportunities to join the B1G and/or SEC. I would not be surprised if that combination was actually worth more than a Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State combo. The B1G and SEC can sweeten that pot, too, by guaranteeing some premiere lineup times or revenue sharing for those intrastate rivalry games.

The PAC has to know that they are in the same boat as the ACC now, although their geography makes them a solid lock to stay together. However, there is a clear separation of power between the B1G/SEC and the PAC/ACC. If taking those four schools ensures that they will be one of the four power conferences for the next era and that it is the best possible additions they could make, do they pull the trigger? All I know is that no one is committing to anything until Texas commits one way or another.

(11-06-2013 12:21 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 10:03 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-05-2013 10:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In light of the Big 12's declining a pro growth Oliver Luck and taking a house cleaning Steve Patterson who has not only Texas ties, but is coming from the PAC let's assume that a partition of the Big 12 is possible in the coming months. I have only found 1 reasonable solution to this problem and one less reasonable alternative.

The Big 10 may be interested in Kansas and possibly Connecticut.
There are some in the ACC (and it is somewhat conflicted) that might be interested in West Virginia.
If Texas went to the PAC and the SEC added Oklahoma and Kansas State it would only take Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to make it happen.

If the ACC reneged on West Virginia the SEC might be able to make it happen by going to 18 and taking West Virginia and one other, possibly from the Big 12, or possibly not.

Indeed, I've been letting the air clear on the main board about the Texas decision for Patterson. Some of the theories probably have some validity, but it is more nuanced than they are presenting. Patterson= Texas to the PAC is too simplistic, but I think it does signal a change in approach from Texas. If there is any truth to the reports that Patterson was chosen over Luck because he is willing to be the hatchet man on Brown and Barnes, it does signal what we knew: the Texas administration knows what needs to be done but is too cowardly to do it themselves. There is a whole segment of "streamlining" consultants in this country that are in lucrative careers because corporations act the same way.

Jimmy Sexton, of course, is using this to get Saban a pay raise, and it does not hurt for the Texas Regents to have a true insider to understand the PAC and their true strategy moving forward. Larry Scott is probably disappointed in this move because Patterson knows what they have been planning to lure Texas, so UT can now up the ante.

West Virginia to the ACC is probably making more sense to them based on recent developments. The ACC lost the academic prestige card when they added Louisville, so adding an academic peer for Louisville is a secondary issue at this point. WVU is a tremendous buddy for Louisville, and they have some bad blood with Pitt and Va. Tech, which will help people give a darn about ACC northern football.

BBB, I PM'd He1nous about this. The Patterson move signals a couple of things clearly. He will clean house and has been brought aboard to do so. I wouldn't be surprised to see Dodds leaver earlier than he had hoped. The president at Texas will be under fire too. The regents just need 1 more vote to oust him. There is a Texas contingent, which contrary to prevailing wisdom on this board want the SEC considered because of geography and football status (and Aggy angst). The governor may be included in this crowd if rumors are to be believed.

Patterson has strong ties to Saban and yes Sexton will play that up for all its worth in Tuscaloosa. I just see Saban retiring before I see him taking up another challenge, especially one as harried by boosters as Texas.

The second clear thing to me about Patterson is that he won't be pro growth for the Big 12. If Saban were to be hired I don't see a PAC move in the offing. I could see a move to the Big 10 or SEC in those circumstances. If they do succeed removing the Texas president I don't see a move to the PAC in the offing at all.

It's going to be a very interesting few months, and perhaps definitive.

If Texas does move to the PAC the only thing I know is that it will take 8 others finding new homes to do it and you just can't split them up that easily. I figure the SEC won't cooperate without one of the prizes. The Big 10 the same. I really think Iowa State has a good shot at the PAC grouping with Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State and that the privates will be the two left out.

Interesting thoughts, JR. You keep up with the UT pulse as well as anyone, so if this is how to read the tea leaves, then things are definitely about to get interesting.

I know that PAC folks will disagree with me, but considering the landscape, I see value in adding Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State if UT, Oklahoma, and Kansas have opportunities to join the B1G and/or SEC. I would not be surprised if that combination was actually worth more than a Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State combo. The B1G and SEC can sweeten that pot, too, by guaranteeing some premiere lineup times or revenue sharing for those intrastate rivalry games.

The PAC has to know that they are in the same boat as the ACC now, although their geography makes them a solid lock to stay together. However, there is a clear separation of power between the B1G/SEC and the PAC/ACC. If taking those four schools ensures that they will be one of the four power conferences for the next era and that it is the best possible additions they could make, do they pull the trigger? All I know is that no one is committing to anything until Texas commits one way or another.

If we drop the fan persona, and realignment scenario junkie persona and look at this from a network perspective then we would already be looking at this mess very differently. You have stated the gap between the Big 10/SEC and PAC/ACC. The two greatest draws for eyeballs against two conferences that struggle to get the vast number of eyeballs in their respective areas. No doubt that the West Coast and East Coast have a disproportionate percentage of the population, but culturally those folks just don't flock to college sports events and for a variety of reasons including geographically, socially, and philosophically. They have beaches, fishing, boating, and more cosmopolitan events with which to entertain themselves. Both coasts are more in tune with the arts than much of the middle of the country. They are wealthier on a whole than the rest of the country. Outdoor sporting events with the masses is simply not as appealing. Add to that the trend for many younger people to do something rather than watch something and choices and affluence make other than traditional sports more appealing and voila.

I don't think the networks can change these trends on either coast. Therefore how do you maximize brands that do garner eyeballs? On the West coast your options are limited by geographical remoteness. There you group a few brands together that consistently compete and hope for the best. Unless you can move them into some competition within central time zones where you hope to spur the interest of traditional dependable fans in some of those West coast brands.

On the Atlantic side your best way to maximize coastal interest would be to pit their best programs against the Big 10 and SEC directly. I think that is why the ACC doesn't yet have network. But N.D. might be appealing enough to ESPN to cement the ACC. We'll see.

I don't think it will happen but 3 conferences would be prime for the networks. If we partition the Big 12 we will have major unfinished business and the parsing of that conference will only further complicate the realignment that needs to take place.

Viewed from a network perspective, I think both FOX/ESPN have as winnable hands as one could get with events that are within their control. Neither can influence the economy nor can either do anything about dwindling attendance. But I think both have maximized viewership as best as the can within the CFB sphere. FOX has the PAC and the B1G and B12 partially while ESPN has the ACC, SEC and the other half of the B12. Each has a rabid fan base (SEC, B1G) along with major population centers(ACC, PAC).

JR, I know you mentioned in another thread that while the ACC geographically has the largest population base that hasn't been monetized, but ESPN doesn't need fans at games to get paid. They just need to be able to justify the WWL stations on basic cable packages. You don't need rabid fans to make that happen, just enough who give a damn to threaten to cancel their cable if it's picked up. Its the same strategy FOX will use on the West Coast with the PAC and their various RSN's.

(11-06-2013 04:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Viewed from a network perspective, I think both FOX/ESPN have as winnable hands as one could get with events that are within their control. Neither can influence the economy nor can either do anything about dwindling attendance. But I think both have maximized viewership as best as the can within the CFB sphere. FOX has the PAC and the B1G and B12 partially while ESPN has the ACC, SEC and the other half of the B12. Each has a rabid fan base (SEC, B1G) along with major population centers(ACC, PAC).

JR, I know you mentioned in another thread that while the ACC geographically has the largest population base that hasn't been monetized, but ESPN doesn't need fans at games to get paid. They just need to be able to justify the WWL stations on basic cable packages. You don't need rabid fans to make that happen, just enough who give a damn to threaten to cancel their cable if it's picked up. Its the same strategy FOX will use on the West Coast with the PAC and their various RSN's.

The problem Vandiver is their number of viewers. They averaged 2.65 million per game out of that colossal footprint while the SEC drew close to 4.5 million out of theirs. The ACC can claim being third in viewership, but the truth is they are .5 from 5th place and 1.2 million away from 2nd. The PAC was last with 2.1 million viewers per game average. I believe the Big 12 had just over 2.3 for an average, but considering their footprint that shows strength actually. So the top brands in the ACC are more valuable in either the Big 10 or SEC.