BXII is the only league with a round robin. That’s special. It’s organically foolproof for rivalries.

Ideally, someone else would poach WVU and the BXII could add someone in the footprint for the perfect league.

IWULT: I'd hope they grab Houston or SMU (the latter so the Iron Skillet Rivalry goes in conference

(03-24-2020 11:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  BXII is the only league with a round robin. That’s special. It’s organically foolproof for rivalries.

Ideally, someone else would poach WVU and the BXII could add someone in the footprint for the perfect league.

WVU seems like a pretty good fit, other than the travel distance. Ideally, which school would you replace them with?

Question: Why do they retain the name "Big-12," with only 10 teams? Seems like a good time for a new name, perhaps something like:

The Great Plains Conference - - every school except WVU is located in a (partly or wholly) Great Plains State - - and having the name "Great" in the conference name would be appealing.

I would expect to see two things happen before the Big 12 can be saved as is....

1. Texas and Oklahoma will explore joining The SEC or The Big Ten.

2. Texas will explore a “Notre Dame“ type agreement with The ACC. If that happens Oklahoma and Kansas will explore joining The Big 10.

These things could happen and the Big 12 would continue along by adding Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, Central Florida, South Florida, BYU and Colorado State. The Big 12 already owns The Big 14 name....

(03-25-2020 02:40 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  BXII is the only league with a round robin. That’s special. It’s organically foolproof for rivalries.

Ideally, someone else would poach WVU and the BXII could add someone in the footprint for the perfect league.

WVU seems like a pretty good fit, other than the travel distance. Ideally, which school would you replace them with?

Question: Why do they retain the name "Big-12," with only 10 teams?

Gee, I wonder why can't call themselves the "Big 10".....

I have a post about the Big 12 keeping West Virginia for football but them playing in the Big East for all other sports. Problem is no other higher conference wants them.

(03-24-2020 09:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What a bizarro world that would have been. In retrospect, I don’t know that Texas in the PAC 12 would have been a good fit. I think the horns would be unhappy. They’d have to bow to the Cali 4 and that wouldn’t fly.

Interesting that you say "Cali 4". In the Pac-12 when it comes to the California schools there really is no dominant school that calls the shots in the conference over the others. There's four Texas schools in the Big 12 but we all know which one calls the shots over the other three. In the UC system, the "main" campus is Berkeley but UCLA I believe is as well respected as Berkeley is, especially athletically. I believe the four schools all respect each other. Things might have been different in the SWC/Big 12 when Texas A&M was still in the conference. In the ACC, North Carolina and Duke are basically Cal and Stanford. In every conference, a school or group of schools are eventually going to be able to call the shots. I'd rather be in a conference where it's a group rather than a single dictator.

(03-25-2020 06:15 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would expect to see two things happen before the Big 12 can be saved as is....

1. Texas and Oklahoma will explore joining The SEC or The Big Ten.

2. Texas will explore a “Notre Dame“ type agreement with The ACC. If that happens Oklahoma and Kansas will explore joining The Big 10.

These things could happen and the Big 12 would continue along by adding Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, Central Florida, South Florida, BYU and Colorado State. The Big 12 already owns The Big 14 name....

Missouri might veto Texas joining the SEC. Bad blood, I believe. Besides, it seems the SEC is very content with their current situation, and they know Texas can be a headache to deal with.

It might be a surprise if the Big-10 expands - again - because the administrator who oversaw the expansion to 14 has left, and there are rumblings of discontent about adding Rutgers & Maryland. Kansas fits their academic/AAU status and midwestern culture pretty well, but Oklahoma doesn't. Besides, Big-10 FB is already too competitive for most schools as it is. A school like Michigan that already has a tough time making the NY6 or championship series could pretty well kiss that idea goodbye if Oklahoma were to join the Big 10.

(03-25-2020 06:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 02:40 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:28 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  BXII is the only league with a round robin. That’s special. It’s organically foolproof for rivalries.

Ideally, someone else would poach WVU and the BXII could add someone in the footprint for the perfect league.

WVU seems like a pretty good fit, other than the travel distance. Ideally, which school would you replace them with?

Question: Why do they retain the name "Big-12," with only 10 teams?

Gee, I wonder why can't call themselves the "Big 10".....

I have a post about the Big 12 keeping West Virginia for football but them playing in the Big East for all other sports. Problem is no other higher conference wants them.

Right, and no big conference except the ACC allows that kind of arrangement, except for Notre Dame (a special dispensation, perhaps).

btw, of course, it goes without saying that the B-12 can't call themselves the Big-10. But it hardly makes sense to keep calling themselves the "Big-12" unless they're planning to add two teams.

Don't know if anyone likes the alternative: The Great Plains Conference.

What about this: "The GREAT Plains Conference?"

(03-25-2020 09:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 06:15 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would expect to see two things happen before the Big 12 can be saved as is....

1. Texas and Oklahoma will explore joining The SEC or The Big Ten.

2. Texas will explore a “Notre Dame“ type agreement with The ACC. If that happens Oklahoma and Kansas will explore joining The Big 10.

These things could happen and the Big 12 would continue along by adding Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, Central Florida, South Florida, BYU and Colorado State. The Big 12 already owns The Big 14 name....

Missouri might veto Texas joining the SEC. Bad blood, I believe. Besides, it seems the SEC is very content with their current situation, and they know Texas can be a headache to deal with.

It might be a surprise if the Big-10 expands - again - because the administrator who oversaw the expansion to 14 has left, and there are rumblings of discontent about adding Rutgers & Maryland. Kansas fits their academic/AAU status and midwestern culture pretty well, but Oklahoma doesn't. Besides, Big-10 FB is already too competitive for most schools as it is. A school like Michigan that already has a tough time making the NY6 or championship series could pretty well kiss that idea goodbye if Oklahoma were to join the Big 10.

I would agree but no conference is going to turn down Texas, especially at the objection of Missouri. That would be the equivalent of the ACC turning down Texas because Louisville objected. The ACC would pat Louisville on the head and say sit down and shut up.

(03-25-2020 09:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Missouri might veto Texas joining the SEC.

If the SEC bigwigs wanted Texas - and they all would of course - and Mizzou tried to veto it, Texas's AD would probably get to see the Mizzou AD being booted out of the conference room as they were invited in.

(03-25-2020 06:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 09:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What a bizarro world that would have been. In retrospect, I don’t know that Texas in the PAC 12 would have been a good fit. I think the horns would be unhappy. They’d have to bow to the Cali 4 and that wouldn’t fly.

Interesting that you say "Cali 4". In the Pac-12 when it comes to the California schools there really is no dominant school that calls the shots in the conference over the others. There's four Texas schools in the Big 12 but we all know which one calls the shots over the other three. In the UC system, the "main" campus is Berkeley but UCLA I believe is as well respected as Berkeley is, especially athletically. I believe the four schools all respect each other. Things might have been different in the SWC/Big 12 when Texas A&M was still in the conference. In the ACC, North Carolina and Duke are basically Cal and Stanford. In every conference, a school or group of schools are eventually going to be able to call the shots. I'd rather be in a conference where it's a group rather than a single dictator.

The 4 California schools generally see eye to eye on things and make a pretty powerful voting block.

You’re right though, conferences where there is a cohort of several schools with similar clout and mutual respect are much healthier than those where there is stark disparity between the dominant and periphery schools. Cultural similarities and similar academic profiles go a long way towards fostering these feelings.

Look at the Big 12. Lots is disparity in power and academics. Not a whole lot of harmony there.

Then you have say the Big Ten, where there is definitely a hierarchy in athletic success but the core has been together for well over 100 yrs and they are all similarly well regarded academic institutions.

First of all I just want to LOL for anyone who thinks mizzu, aggy or pig could dictate Texas not going into the SEC if it wants to.

That said, Texas won't go to the SEC nor the rust belt conference. A pac 12 move would make sense only if both conferences dissolve in which 8 members of the big 12 form a division with 8 current members of the pac 12 to form divisions that keep it regional.

It's easy for schools to blame Texas like Nebraska and aggy did (despite them both wanting to continue un equal revenues). Big 12 is stable. They are not far behind the rust belt or sec payouts.. And if Bowlsby has the conference best interests long term.. He will push for both LA schools to join the conference along with 2-4 extras.

(03-25-2020 03:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 09:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  Missouri might veto Texas joining the SEC.

If the SEC bigwigs wanted Texas - and they all would of course - and Mizzou tried to veto it, Texas's AD would probably get to see the Mizzou AD being booted out of the conference room as they were invited in.

Texas is like that hot girl who was accused of killing her ex and everyone knows she did but shes still hot.

(03-25-2020 08:38 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  First of all I just want to LOL for anyone who thinks mizzu, aggy or pig could dictate Texas not going into the SEC if it wants to.

That said, Texas won't go to the SEC nor the rust belt conference. A pac 12 move would make sense only if both conferences dissolve in which 8 members of the big 12 form a division with 8 current members of the pac 12 to form divisions that keep it regional.

It's easy for schools to blame Texas like Nebraska and aggy did (despite them both wanting to continue un equal revenues). Big 12 is stable. They are not far behind the rust belt or sec payouts.. And if Bowlsby has the conference best interests long term.. He will push for both LA schools to join the conference along with 2-4 extras.

Arkansas and Missouri would be happy to have Texas in the conference. Only A&M fans would be unhappy, but the A&M administration would likely abstain in the vote while giving a wink to the rest of the SEC presidents all of which would be happy to have Texas. Nobody blackballs a school that earns them more money annually and improves the academic profile of the conference at the same time. It is a business at the conference level of athletics.

I agree with you that a PAC/Big 12 merger could happen if:
1. The PAC simply refuses to renew the GOR in 2025 and the Big 12 simply refuses to renew the GOR in 2025. No vote dissolve is necessary with both GOR's expiring.

2. The mix would be different. Think 10 PAC schools and 6 Big 12 schools.
Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.

Now privates and no room for Iowa State which is a geographic outlier, or WVU which is even a bigger outlier.

3. The PAC would be minus Oregon State, and Washington State, but would include all 9 AAU schools and Arizona State.

I just don't think that's going to happen. There's way too much money to be made for Oklahoma in the East where the better recruiting grounds are. Also ESPN would have a big say since they hold the LHN contract until 2031. It's true they can dissolve that contract if both parties agree it is in their self interest to do so. I just don't see it happening.

But theoretically if both conferences refuse to renew their GOR's they could form any new conference they wished.

(03-25-2020 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I just don't think that's going to happen. There's way too much money to be made for Oklahoma in the East where the better recruiting grounds are.

This is partly wishful thinking on my part, but OU to the SEC makes business sense on both ends. OU gets a stable conference, the ability to generate the maximum amount of income (with no equity purchase of a share in a network), and the ability to recruit enough to win a national championship in football. The SEC gets a college football blueblood and a top 5 brand name. The SEC can use OU to grab Texas, or if it doesn't work out, bring in Kansas or Oklahoma State as #16.

I do believe there needs to be an improved "P" western conference. If Texas is willing to work with the California schools, it can happen. They would have plenty of willing partners in the current Big 12. Take the Pac 12 minus Oregon State & Washington State (10). Add 6 Big 12 schools (UT, Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Kansas or Oklahoma State, whichever one does not go to the SEC with OU) (6). If the new conference doesn't want another private school, replace TCU with Houston. Utah and Colorado would need to come east, against their desires.

There are a lot of eyeballs in both California and Texas. But, those eyeballs out west aren't watching college football at the rate that it's watched in the South and Midwest. Therefore, I'm not sure if they can get a SEC-level TV package. However, they will get a representative media deal, and Texas could potentially keep LHN until it runs out in 2031.

Texas leaving the Big 12-2 is never going to happen unless ESPiN does pays them to do so. The LHN is is UT's moneymaker, and until that changes, UT is staying put.

(03-26-2020 12:09 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I just don't think that's going to happen. There's way too much money to be made for Oklahoma in the East where the better recruiting grounds are.

This is partly wishful thinking on my part, but OU to the SEC makes business sense on both ends. OU gets a stable conference, the ability to generate the maximum amount of income (with no equity purchase of a share in a network), and the ability to recruit enough to win a national championship in football. The SEC gets a college football blueblood and a top 5 brand name. The SEC can use OU to grab Texas, or if it doesn't work out, bring in Kansas or Oklahoma State as #16.

I do believe there needs to be an improved "P" western conference. If Texas is willing to work with the California schools, it can happen. They would have plenty of willing partners in the current Big 12. Take the Pac 12 minus Oregon State & Washington State (10). Add 6 Big 12 schools (UT, Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Kansas or Oklahoma State, whichever one does not go to the SEC with OU) (6). If the new conference doesn't want another private school, replace TCU with Houston. Utah and Colorado would need to come east, against their desires.

There are a lot of eyeballs in both California and Texas. But, those eyeballs out west aren't watching college football at the rate that it's watched in the South and Midwest. Therefore, I'm not sure if they can get a SEC-level TV package. However, they will get a representative media deal, and Texas could potentially keep LHN until it runs out in 2031.

I think legitimately that ESPN would have to be involved to make any move of Texas to the PAC 12 possible.

Here's the whole issue as simply as I know how to put it. Texas and Oklahoma account for 2 billion in total value out of the Big 12's entire value of 3.5 billion. That's 57% of the total value of the Big 12. What many don't realize is that Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas combined equal the entire value of the full members of the ACC and about 70% of the total value of the PAC 12 in business terms.

Of course anyone would take Texas and virtually anyone would be interested in Oklahoma. Notre Dame is the only other school out there worth as much.

But that said I don't think the PAC can afford to take 2 other Texas schools with them let alone 5 other lesser brands. The money and value just isn't there for that.

Texas can justify 1 tag-along, not 2. To calculate this you take the average value of a school in the inviting conference and the combined value of Texas (1.2 billion) and whoever it is you think should move with them and add that value and divide by 2. The farther they are over the inviting conference's average the more likely that move is to be considered. The PAC average valuation per school is 250 million or .25 billion. Texas Tech's value is .244 So with Texas their average would be .7 so absolutely the PAC should be willing to do that. There are only 4 more schools within the Big 12 that are over .25 billion in value. Kansas State at .27, Kansas at .3, OSU at .27, and OU at.885. I think Notre Dame is ~.93.

Now if Texas takes 2 schools with them to the PAC then Kansas State or Kansas would have to be with them. Remember the PAC balked at OSU with OU before.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together average .557 billion in value. The conference average for a school in the SEC is .534 billion in value.

So if the SEC takes both Oklahoma schools it only slightly adds to its value and gets no addition benefit in terms of potential viewers from OSU. Oklahoma and Kansas together would be about .560 billion. That's not much more value at all but Kansas is AAU and they do add a new state.

There really is not enough value to bring in a 2nd Texas school unless it is UT and that value is massive.

I really think the trick for the Big 10 is to land 1 of Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame. Two would bring them close to the SEC in total valuation provided the SEC didn't land the third.

The trick for the SEC is to land one of Oklahoma and Texas because that locks them in the #1 spot in total valuation. Should they land both that puts the SEC's total value at ~9.7 billion to the Big 10's ~5.4 billion. That's lights out come contract time. Even if the Big 10 added N.D with another whose value was around .3 that only takes them to 6.6 billion.

There's your ball game going on behind the scenes. If Texas and Oklahoma joined the PAC 12 with nobody else it only raises that conferences' value to 5 billion.

The entire ACC's valuation is 2.4 billion. Texas and Notre Dame as partials and independents would have a value of 2.1 billion which wouldn't help the ACC very much at all. The ACC between those two should they rotate their home and away promised games, would only give the ACC 5 games a year to sell to add their value.

This is why this partial membership deal really isn't provide much of a lift to the ACC schools who share bowl access with Notre Dame.

It is also why I emphatically doubt that either Texas or Oklahoma would join the PAC or the ACC.

Remember the total valuation of the 10 member Big 12 exceeds the value of the 14.5 member ACC by 1.1 billion, and it exceeds that of the 12 member PAC by 500 million. So it profits them nothing to associate with the ACC and even if they picked the PAC it doesn't make them the #2 valued conference and with PAC viewership vs that of the Big 10 or SEC such a move would be more doomed than standing pat. The travel alone would kill them. And the exposure would be awful.

So I just don't see any real options other than these 3:
1. Big 12 stands pat.
2. Texas and Oklahoma join either the Big 10 or SEC.
3. Oklahoma and Texas each take 1 other school with them to either the Big 10 or SEC.

I do think Texas will try to protect the other Texas state school.

So where Oklahoma moves with Kansas will be dependent upon where Texas moves with Tech. And that's how I see it.

And none of this factors in these other crucial details:
1. Obligated existing contracts of duration.
2. Best fit for sports.
3. Best fit for business model.
4. Strategically the best move for maintained dominance over their home region.
5. Money.
6. Academics

Now let's consider why I think it is that Texas and Tech will consider the SEC from a strategic standpoint.
1. It reduces essentially the number of P schools in Texas to 3. This is important because recruiting is only going to get more difficult with fewer top athletes choosing football over basketball or baseball due chiefly to CTE's.
2. It levels any brand advantage Texas A&M has by being in the SEC so that means that Texas once again has every advantage in branding within their home state and that puts them undeniably back on top in all regards.
3. Such a move suits their sports tastes and their business model.
4. It increases their academic recruiting exposure in key growth states like Georgia and Florida.
5. It's the best travel package they can get outside of the Big 12.
6. It sends their chief rival Oklahoma with Kansas to the Big 10 and further distances Texas's recruiting advantages within their home state.
7. It pisses off Aggie.

So what I'm saying is that Texas wouldn't necessarily want to move with Oklahoma at all, as long as they keep the RRR. Oklahoma on the other hand needs to move either with Texas, or to the SEC where they would have A&M, or their recruiting gets hosed and they know this.

This is a good as it gets in drama as we tick down to 2024 when the SEC and Big 10 will be looking.

(03-25-2020 06:15 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would expect to see two things happen before the Big 12 can be saved as is....

1. Texas and Oklahoma will explore joining The SEC or The Big Ten.

2. Texas will explore a “Notre Dame“ type agreement with The ACC. If that happens Oklahoma and Kansas will explore joining The Big 10.

These things could happen and the Big 12 would continue along by adding Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, Central Florida, South Florida, BYU and Colorado State. The Big 12 already owns The Big 14 name....

#2 the most likely scenario with the caveat...would the B1G overlook the academic deficiencies of Oklahoma to provide a 2nd big football rivalry (OU/NU) in the west.
That move would give the B1G 6 top line football schools (PSU, Mich,OSU, Wisc, NEB, OU, with east west balance) that could go toe to toe with the SEC for TV viewers.

(03-26-2020 01:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think legitimately that ESPN would have to be involved to make any move of Texas to the PAC 12 possible.

Here's the whole issue as simply as I know how to put it. Texas and Oklahoma account for 2 billion in total value out of the Big 12's entire value of 3.5 billion. That's 57% of the total value of the Big 12. What many don't realize is that Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas combined equal the entire value of the full members of the ACC and about 70% of the total value of the PAC 12 in business terms.

Of course anyone would take Texas and virtually anyone would be interested in Oklahoma. Notre Dame is the only other school out there worth as much.

But that said I don't think the PAC can afford to take 2 other Texas schools with them let alone 5 other lesser brands. The money and value just isn't there for that.

Texas can justify 1 tag-along, not 2. To calculate this you take the average value of a school in the inviting conference and the combined value of Texas (1.2 billion) and whoever it is you think should move with them and add that value and divide by 2. The farther they are over the inviting conference's average the more likely that move is to be considered. The PAC average valuation per school is 250 million or .25 billion. Texas Tech's value is .244 So with Texas their average would be .7 so absolutely the PAC should be willing to do that. There are only 4 more schools within the Big 12 that are over .25 billion in value. Kansas State at .27, Kansas at .3, OSU at .27, and OU at.885. I think Notre Dame is ~.93.

Now if Texas takes 2 schools with them to the PAC then Kansas State or Kansas would have to be with them. Remember the PAC balked at OSU with OU before.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together average .557 billion in value. The conference average for a school in the SEC is .534 billion in value.

So if the SEC takes both Oklahoma schools it only slightly adds to its value and gets no addition benefit in terms of potential viewers from OSU. Oklahoma and Kansas together would be about .560 billion. That's not much more value at all but Kansas is AAU and they do add a new state.

There really is not enough value to bring in a 2nd Texas school unless it is UT and that value is massive.

I really think the trick for the Big 10 is to land 1 of Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame. Two would bring them close to the SEC in total valuation provided the SEC didn't land the third.

The trick for the SEC is to land one of Oklahoma and Texas because that locks them in the #1 spot in total valuation. Should they land both that puts the SEC's total value at ~9.7 billion to the Big 10's ~5.4 billion. That's lights out come contract time. Even if the Big 10 added N.D with another whose value was around .3 that only takes them to 6.6 billion.

There's your ball game going on behind the scenes. If Texas and Oklahoma joined the PAC 12 with nobody else it only raises that conferences' value to 5 billion.

The entire ACC's valuation is 2.4 billion. Texas and Notre Dame as partials and independents would have a value of 2.1 billion which wouldn't help the ACC very much at all. The ACC between those two should they rotate their home and away promised games, would only give the ACC 5 games a year to sell to add their value.

This is why this partial membership deal really isn't provide much of a lift to the ACC schools who share bowl access with Notre Dame.

It is also why I emphatically doubt that either Texas or Oklahoma would join the PAC or the ACC.

Remember the total valuation of the 10 member Big 12 exceeds the value of the 14.5 member ACC by 1.1 billion, and it exceeds that of the 12 member PAC by 500 million. So it profits them nothing to associate with the ACC and even if they picked the PAC it doesn't make them the #2 valued conference and with PAC viewership vs that of the Big 10 or SEC such a move would be more doomed than standing pat. The travel alone would kill them. And the exposure would be awful.

So I just don't see any real options other than these 3:
1. Big 12 stands pat.
2. Texas and Oklahoma join either the Big 10 or SEC.
3. Oklahoma and Texas each take 1 other school with them to either the Big 10 or SEC.

I do think Texas will try to protect the other Texas state school.

So where Oklahoma moves with Kansas will be dependent upon where Texas moves with Tech. And that's how I see it.

And none of this factors in these other crucial details:
1. Obligated existing contracts of duration.
2. Best fit for sports.
3. Best fit for business model.
4. Strategically the best move for maintained dominance over their home region.
5. Money.
6. Academics

Now let's consider why I think it is that Texas and Tech will consider the SEC from a strategic standpoint.
1. It reduces essentially the number of P schools in Texas to 3. This is important because recruiting is only going to get more difficult with fewer top athletes choosing football over basketball or baseball due chiefly to CTE's.
2. It levels any brand advantage Texas A&M has by being in the SEC so that means that Texas once again has every advantage in branding within their home state and that puts them undeniably back on top in all regards.
3. Such a move suits their sports tastes and their business model.
4. It increases their academic recruiting exposure in key growth states like Georgia and Florida.
5. It's the best travel package they can get outside of the Big 12.
6. It sends their chief rival Oklahoma with Kansas to the Big 10 and further distances Texas's recruiting advantages within their home state.
7. It pisses off Aggie.

So what I'm saying is that Texas wouldn't necessarily want to move with Oklahoma at all, as long as they keep the RRR. Oklahoma on the other hand needs to move either with Texas, or to the SEC where they would have A&M, or their recruiting gets hosed and they know this.

This is a good as it gets in drama as we tick down to 2024 when the SEC and Big 10 will be looking.

Your values are the current values. Of course ESPN/FOX can change the values and it is expected the SEC's values will go up once the new contract kicks in and they're getting north of $300M/yr in 1st tier rights from ESPN vs. $55M/yr from CBS.

I don't doubt that Texas will want to protect Texas Tech and you've answered why they would want to leave Oklahoma out of the SEC. It doesn't mean the SEC has to play along. In your own valuations, you have Texas Tech behind Kansas State and Oklahoma State. The revenue numbers say if the SEC is forced to choose Texas OR Oklahoma they would choose Texas. It doesn't mean they would. They could argue they already have Texas with Texas A&M and choose Oklahoma to get a new state and if they get Kansas get two states. Also, Oklahoma lately has been better in football and that seems to matter more to the SEC. What the SEC should do to Texas and Oklahoma is say either both of you are getting in or neither of you are getting in. Texas can demand they want Texas Tech in the SEC all they want, the SEC doesn't have to listen (especially if Oklahoma is out).

As for Texas/Oklahoma to the Pac-12, ESPN (and/or FOX) would have to be involved. What's their motivation? Assuming Texas won't move anywhere without Texas Tech and the SEC and Big Ten won't accept Texas Tech and the Pac-12 will, you can pay more money to the Pac-12 and consolidate them and Texas/Oklahoma or you can pay the Little 8. Why give the Big 12 another $3.5 billion when 57% of it go to two schools and another $3 billion to the Pac-12? Give the Pac-12 $5.5 billion and the Little 8 (or Little 6 since Texas Tech and I assume Kansas would be in the Pac-16) zero (or $1 billion, you still break even but you'd have Texas/Oklahoma-California schools/Oregon games which draw better than Texas/Oklahoma-Iowa State/West Virginia). If you assume that ESPN/FOX don't want to pay for the Big 12, the Pac-12 could be the only option. I've also said maybe the SEC and Big Ten don't even want to expand at all. We don't have any idea what the Big Ten's next deal will be worth but we do have an idea what the SEC's will be. They'll be rich without Texas or Oklahoma. Sure they would love to have either but they don't HAVE to have either (especially if they have to add an extra mouth to feed named you know what).

(03-26-2020 05:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 06:15 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I would expect to see two things happen before the Big 12 can be saved as is....

1. Texas and Oklahoma will explore joining The SEC or The Big Ten.

2. Texas will explore a “Notre Dame“ type agreement with The ACC. If that happens Oklahoma and Kansas will explore joining The Big 10.

These things could happen and the Big 12 would continue along by adding Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston, Central Florida, South Florida, BYU and Colorado State. The Big 12 already owns The Big 14 name....

#2 the most likely scenario with the caveat...would the B1G overlook the academic deficiencies of Oklahoma to provide a 2nd big football rivalry (OU/NU) in the west.
That move would give the B1G 6 top line football schools (PSU, Mich,OSU, Wisc, NEB, OU, with east west balance) that could go toe to toe with the SEC for TV viewers.

Oklahoma's academics would certainly be a concern to the Big Ten presidents. Don't forget that while Kansas is an AAU member their USN&WR ranking is #130, they're barely above Oklahoma (#132). Oklahoma-Kansas isn't just much worse financially and in terms of population than Texas-Oklahoma for the Big Ten, it's way worse academically. I love Kansas's men's basketball but they don't justify more western crap in the Big Ten.

(03-25-2020 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree with you that a PAC/Big 12 merger could happen if:
1. The PAC simply refuses to renew the GOR in 2025 and the Big 12 simply refuses to renew the GOR in 2025. No vote dissolve is necessary with both GOR's expiring.

2. The mix would be different. Think 10 PAC schools and 6 Big 12 schools.
Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.

Now privates and no room for Iowa State which is a geographic outlier, or WVU which is even a bigger outlier.

3. The PAC would be minus Oregon State, and Washington State, but would include all 9 AAU schools and Arizona State.

I just don't think that's going to happen. There's way too much money to be made for Oklahoma in the East where the better recruiting grounds are. Also ESPN would have a big say since they hold the LHN contract until 2031. It's true they can dissolve that contract if both parties agree it is in their self interest to do so. I just don't see it happening.

But theoretically if both conferences refuse to renew their GOR's they could form any new conference they wished.

My only thing about the Pac is that it's a great regional conference full of tradition but they could easily trim down to form a merger with some Big 12 defects.
SC, UCLA, AZ, ASU, OR, UW, UT and one of CAL/CU/Stanford. Add in Texas, Tech, ou, okie light, KS, KU, Iowa St.. then you could reasonably ask if Nebraska or Mizzu would want back in. If not then TCU could stay.

My point being that an 8 division of former pac schools still have it's built in rivalries and makes sense geographically, same for the former big 12 defects in another division. Granted if both Mizzu and Corn says no thank you, Colorado could take TCUs spot.

I don't want to see kansas st or Iowa st get hosed because through thick and thin the past 20 years, they still show up and are a rabid fanbase in all sports. Can't say the same for some of the current pac 12 schools.

Also is it true about stanford running the pac conference over a school like SC?