+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: (/thread-642598.html)
What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - JRsec - 08-02-2013 07:46 PM
ACC:
N.Atlantic: B. College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
C. Atlantic: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forrest
Gulf: Baylor, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas
SEC:
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, E. Carolina, S. Carolina, West Virginia
South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Kansas State, L.S.U., Missouri, Oklahoma St., Texas A&M
PAC:
South: Arizona, Arizona State, U.N.L.V., New Mexico, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Wash St.
East: Brigham Young, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Utah
Big 10:
East: Buffalo, Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mich State, Northwestern, Purdue
West: Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Note: Extra Consideration is given to the ACC and PAC for the establishment of a bit more balance. Less consideration is given to the Big 10 and SEC.
Also Note that to accommodate 72 schools each conference might have a 17th or 18th selection that it otherwise might not have taken.
Arguments could be made in several cases:
South Florida or Central Florida could be more attractive than East Carolina, but I selected East Carolina because of attendance and an entry into a new market.
Colorado State might be a consideration for the Big 10 should they push closer to AAU.
The PAC may opt for someone other than New Mexico, U.N.L.V., or B.Y.U.
But 72 would provide a more balanced outcome in winners and losers than 64 and it also covers other issues about accessibility.
Thoughts, suggestions, and alternatives are welcomed.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 08:04 PM
To me, the situation for Oklahoma stands out as absolutely horrible for them. I definitely think they would push for the spot that Iowa State possesses in your scenario and ISU would be S.O.L. in this scenario and would end up racking up some huge travel bills in the PAC due to the three division scenario.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - JRsec - 08-02-2013 08:12 PM
(08-02-2013 08:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: To me, the situation for Oklahoma stands out as absolutely horrible for them. I definitely think they would push for the spot that Iowa State possesses in your scenario and ISU would be S.O.L. in this scenario and would end up racking up some huge travel bills in the PAC due to the three division scenario.
Not really, just bump Wisconsin to the Central and Indiana to the East instead of Buffalo and let the PAC find another candidate. Besides it is an example not a prediction. Offer an alternative.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 08:38 PM
(08-02-2013 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:(08-02-2013 08:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: To me, the situation for Oklahoma stands out as absolutely horrible for them. I definitely think they would push for the spot that Iowa State possesses in your scenario and ISU would be S.O.L. in this scenario and would end up racking up some huge travel bills in the PAC due to the three division scenario.
Not really, just bump Wisconsin to the Central and Indiana to the East instead of Buffalo and let the PAC find another candidate.
Well, it would probably be Purdue pushed East. I know Indiana is the one now but that is because of their tie to Michigan State and Purdue's supposed tie's to some Western Division schools such as Illinois.
In your scenario though, Indiana has ties to both MSU and Illinois. They would probably be kept in the Central and Purdue pushed east.
I suppose for the sakes of the discussion and the idea you are putting forward. Removing Buffalo and taking Oklahoma is feasible.
Put New Mexico in the PAC East and then perhaps slip Hawaii into the South.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - JRsec - 08-02-2013 08:43 PM
(08-02-2013 08:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-02-2013 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:(08-02-2013 08:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: To me, the situation for Oklahoma stands out as absolutely horrible for them. I definitely think they would push for the spot that Iowa State possesses in your scenario and ISU would be S.O.L. in this scenario and would end up racking up some huge travel bills in the PAC due to the three division scenario.
Not really, just bump Wisconsin to the Central and Indiana to the East instead of Buffalo and let the PAC find another candidate.
Well, it would probably be Purdue pushed East. I know Indiana is the one now but that is because of their tie to Michigan State and Purdue's supposed tie's to some Western Division schools such as Illinois.
In your scenario though, Indiana has ties to both MSU and Illinois. They would probably be kept in the Central and Purdue pushed east.
I suppose for the sakes of the discussion and the idea you are putting forward. Removing Buffalo and taking Oklahoma is feasible.
Put New Mexico in the PAC East and then perhaps slip Hawaii into the South.
Yep, I considered Hawaii. You know the only way to get the PAC what it wants is to go to 3 conferences of 20 - 24 teams each. At 4 power conferences options will just remain limited for them. I do like 72. I feel the tendency for fans and hopefully not commissioners is to build truly powerful conferences. Without the guys struggling to get into a power conference being brought aboard I fear we are going to lose our balance points for wins and losses among the power teams and that won't be popular. I have a harder time pushing 80, but at 72 we are still missing South and Central Florida and a few others.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - 10thMountain - 08-02-2013 09:00 PM
Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"
I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 10:11 PM
(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"
I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market
Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.
Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-02-2013 10:13 PM
(08-02-2013 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:(08-02-2013 08:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-02-2013 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:(08-02-2013 08:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: To me, the situation for Oklahoma stands out as absolutely horrible for them. I definitely think they would push for the spot that Iowa State possesses in your scenario and ISU would be S.O.L. in this scenario and would end up racking up some huge travel bills in the PAC due to the three division scenario.
Not really, just bump Wisconsin to the Central and Indiana to the East instead of Buffalo and let the PAC find another candidate.
Well, it would probably be Purdue pushed East. I know Indiana is the one now but that is because of their tie to Michigan State and Purdue's supposed tie's to some Western Division schools such as Illinois.
In your scenario though, Indiana has ties to both MSU and Illinois. They would probably be kept in the Central and Purdue pushed east.
I suppose for the sakes of the discussion and the idea you are putting forward. Removing Buffalo and taking Oklahoma is feasible.
Put New Mexico in the PAC East and then perhaps slip Hawaii into the South.
Yep, I considered Hawaii. You know the only way to get the PAC what it wants is to go to 3 conferences of 20 - 24 teams each. At 4 power conferences options will just remain limited for them. I do like 72. I feel the tendency for fans and hopefully not commissioners is to build truly powerful conferences. Without the guys struggling to get into a power conference being brought aboard I fear we are going to lose our balance points for wins and losses among the power teams and that won't be popular. I have a harder time pushing 80, but at 72 we are still missing South and Central Florida and a few others.
I understand your analysis for the three conference scenario. You know me though, I don't have the confidence in these people to think that they would be willing and able to go That far. Who knows, maybe they are though.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - JRsec - 08-03-2013 02:05 AM
I'll take a shot at a 3 x 24 model:
SEC North:
Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
SEC East:
Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, S. Carolina
SEC South:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Miss State, South Florida
SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Big 10 East:
Boston College, Connecticut, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers
Big 10 South:
Duke, Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Purdue, Virginia
Big 10 North:
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Big 10 West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rice
PAC North:
California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington St.
PAC West:
Arizona, Arizona St., Hawaii, San Diego State, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.
PAC South:
Brigham Young, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, U.N.L.V., Wyoming
PAC East:
Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-03-2013 10:31 AM
Wow, JR...nothing against you man but I think you met your match in attempting to tackle that behemoth.
That's pretty ugly.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - 10thMountain - 08-03-2013 10:33 AM
(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"
I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market
Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.
Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.
TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.
As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.
We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - JRsec - 08-03-2013 12:44 PM
(08-03-2013 10:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote: Wow, JR...nothing against you man but I think you met your match in attempting to tackle that behemoth.
That's pretty ugly.
Yep, Geographically it works fine for the SEC, It's name worthy, and geographically tight for the Big 10, but not AAU centric, and has too many privates. The PAC is a cooking experiment boiled over.
But, it does prove something to put it down and look at it. It proves to me that if we ever move to just three mega conferences that the total will only go to 60, not 72. At sixty you can arrange 3 fairly sexy conferences because you can't arrange 24 name brands schools in the Southeast and there can be enough AAU, or AAU close schools to keep the Big 10 demographic in line, and there are enough decent central time zone schools for the PAC.
You know that if we ever move to 3 top conferences that they will all be paid essentially the same thing anyway. If that happens then the PAC will be free to take some teams to develop without diminishing their payouts. I think that's one reason they have to wait. What they can't sell today won't be as big of a problem tomorrow.
Oh, and by the way He1nous, I have a really strong 3 x 24 that is far more realistic from a grouping standpoint (economically and academically grouped) and Delany would love it as would Slive. I'll PM it to you sometime.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - USAFMEDIC - 08-03-2013 02:16 PM
If the ACC can get a ND type agreement with UT, I am pretty sure they would take two or even three other Texas schools. UT won't have any trouble filling a schedule. If this happens the ACC would cement it's place as a premier conference.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-03-2013 06:11 PM
(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"
I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market
Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.
Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.
TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.
As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.
We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)
Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.
My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - 10thMountain - 08-03-2013 08:15 PM
The PAC wouldn't take OU without UT but they'll take Tech?
Not seeing it.
I think UT/OU to the B1G is more likely than any B12 team joining the ACC
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-03-2013 11:31 PM
(08-03-2013 08:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote: The PAC wouldn't take OU without UT but they'll take Tech?
Not seeing it.
I think UT/OU to the B1G is more likely than any B12 team joining the ACC
Once again...for the umpteenth time. This isn't a year or two ago where the PAC is trying to jump the gun. This is the final two minutes of the game. We are about to have Division 4. We are about to have new rules that actually allow 16 to be profitable and for scheduling to be feasible.
The PAC TRIED to get what they wanted. They failed and it was made perfectly clear to them that they are not going to get it exactly their way.
Everyone seems to think the PAC will hold up progress if it comes down to this scenario. I disagree. Tech, ISU and KSU are way beyond any other choices the PAC may have currently out West.
The big deal here is Time and pressure. There was little pressure then to take what they absolutely weren't fully excited for. Now...no one will get anything if the Majors don't work together.
So in the end, that is fine if you don't see it but to me that is because your mentality is still one to two years ago.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - USAFMEDIC - 08-04-2013 12:02 AM
(08-03-2013 11:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-03-2013 08:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote: The PAC wouldn't take OU without UT but they'll take Tech?
Not seeing it.
I think UT/OU to the B1G is more likely than any B12 team joining the ACC
Once again...for the umpteenth time. This isn't a year or two ago where the PAC is trying to jump the gun. This is the final two minutes of the game. We are about to have Division 4. We are about to have new rules that actually allow 16 to be profitable and for scheduling to be feasible.
The PAC TRIED to get what they wanted. They failed and it was made perfectly clear to them that they are not going to get it exactly their way.
Everyone seems to think the PAC will hold up progress if it comes down to this scenario. I disagree. Tech, ISU and KSU are way beyond any other choices the PAC may have currently out West.
The big deal here is Time and pressure. There was little pressure then to take what they absolutely weren't fully excited for. Now...no one will get anything if the Majors don't work together.
So in the end, that is fine if you don't see it but to me that is because your mentality is still one to two years ago.
I agree that the PAC 12 has very limited choices now. There is not another marquee school west of the Rockies that fits the PAC 12 mold. They made a HUGE mistake by not taking OU/OSU. Probably should have also invited Kansas and K State to get to 16... Would have been four solid additions.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - He1nousOne - 08-04-2013 12:27 AM
(08-04-2013 12:02 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:(08-03-2013 11:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-03-2013 08:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote: The PAC wouldn't take OU without UT but they'll take Tech?
Not seeing it.
I think UT/OU to the B1G is more likely than any B12 team joining the ACC
Once again...for the umpteenth time. This isn't a year or two ago where the PAC is trying to jump the gun. This is the final two minutes of the game. We are about to have Division 4. We are about to have new rules that actually allow 16 to be profitable and for scheduling to be feasible.
The PAC TRIED to get what they wanted. They failed and it was made perfectly clear to them that they are not going to get it exactly their way.
Everyone seems to think the PAC will hold up progress if it comes down to this scenario. I disagree. Tech, ISU and KSU are way beyond any other choices the PAC may have currently out West.
The big deal here is Time and pressure. There was little pressure then to take what they absolutely weren't fully excited for. Now...no one will get anything if the Majors don't work together.
So in the end, that is fine if you don't see it but to me that is because your mentality is still one to two years ago.
I agree that the PAC 12 has very limited choices now. There is not another marquee school west of the Rockies that fits the PAC 12 mold. They made a HUGE mistake by not taking OU/OSU. Probably should have also invited Kansas and K State to get to 16... Would have been four solid additions.
Yep, but it's too late now. It is End Game time and those schools have other people sniffin around trying to take them to the prom.
To be honest though, for what the PAC needs, is the combo of Tech/KSU/ISU really all that much worse? The PAC really doesn't need anymore elite national programs. They have some really good ones already. Tech, ISU and KSU each bring a brand new state to the playing field for the PAC, it's new Network and future negotiations with Networks after having Central Time Zone locations that can show PAC matchups at the early 11 am time slot. OU/OSU/KSU/KU doesn't include a Texas school.
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - jml2010 - 08-04-2013 12:49 AM
(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"
I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market
Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.
Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.
TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.
As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.
We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)
Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.
My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.
Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.
I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????
RE: What a D4 Conference Alignment Might Look Like: - USAFMEDIC - 08-04-2013 01:48 AM
(08-04-2013 12:49 AM)jml2010 Wrote:Tech will land on it's feet no matter what happens...(08-03-2013 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-03-2013 10:33 AM)10thMountain Wrote:(08-02-2013 10:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:(08-02-2013 09:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Nice overall...still just can't see us taking Okie Lite, there's just nothing about them that screams "worth a priceless SEC expansion slot"
I'd rather we invested in one of the DFW privates like TCU or SMU than the number 2 team in a tiny market
Once again though, the Big 12 won't be picked apart piece by piece. It will be an all or nothing effort. Unfortunately SMU does not help with that. If Texas ends up taking two programs with them to the ACC, they will have to be easily accessible. TCU tops the list in accessibility.
Oklahoma State may be a number 2 team in a tiny market but they are a very strong program for a number 2 team. They are in the top 25 most profitable college football programs. They have a great coach that seems to be there for the long haul. They have great financial backing, in particular Mr Pickens. That means they have outstanding facilities and they will look great on the SECN where as SMU.....not so much. TCU has a nice stadium but it isn't really SEC sized. It is more of an ACC stadium and TCU itself is oh so very tiny. OSU just seems more like an SEC program than either TCU or SMU.
TCU is the superior choice to OSU for one very important reason: Location.
Having A&M, Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama and LSU show up for games there every year allows the SEC to firmly plant its flag in the heart of the Big 12.
As for your UT to the ACC...if UT wants to go anywhere, the Texas team they HAVE to bring with them is Tech (and maybe Baylor too). If they dont and those two are not taken care of (and they define taken care of as being in the same league as UT) then thre is no way UT will get past legislature.
We did it because 1) UT was still there to take care of the kids after the divorce and 2) they stated in public that A&M leaving would not hurt the conference (thus absolving us of responsibility for the kids)
Texas Tech could become the Texas A&M of the PAC conference. What Texas would have to do would be to sign a binding agreement with tech that they will have a protected ooc rivalry game. I don't see why Tech would necessarily want to play in the ACC. They have a lot more in common with their Western neighbors. They would be out from the Texas shadow while still having what they would say A&M doesn't have. A rivalry with Texas.
My scenario would absolutely have Baylor going too. TCU and Baylor as the tiny privates that fit in with the ACC much better than OSU does. OSU fits in better with the SEC.
Thanks H. I appreciate the kind words. I think its funny seeing Tech labeled as kid from an aggie fan. The 3rd largest fan supported University in the State of Texas isn't a kid. The 29th largest fan supported University in the country isn't a kid (2012 attendance numbers). A&M and their fans should be pushing for Texas to go elsewhere and then support Tech going to the PAC 12. Tech was only Texas school in the Big 12 that didn't throw a temper tantrum when A&M decided to go to the SEC.
I will somewhat miss seeing UT and A&M on the schedule every year but it will be nice to be in a power conference without them. As for who I would to join us in a possible PAC 12 invite is up for debate. Would love to see OU and Oklahoma St join and maybe TCU?????
