(07-07-2018 02:32 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 12:39 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas may be the most confusing school out there in terms of which direction they may go when it comes to expansion/realignment. They probably could go anywhere they choose, given a willingness and that demands would be reasonable to the host conference. Due to geography in part, nothing looks ideal; but the SEC would offer the most practical, and perhaps lucrative, long-term arrangement. Texas has a long reputation of displaying arrogance publically, but will be more conversant and strategic in negotiating with others on a confidential level. They have had a history of chatting with the SEC regarding expansion, and often schedule to play a SEC school when good opportunities arise. There may be some strained feelings toward the SEC for accepting Texas A&M, but they also know both have been in dialogue with
the SEC for decades about expanding. When UT and A&M bolted to join with the Big 8 to create the B12, and in the process bringing along TTU and Baylor, they didn't sound very sad that Rice, Houston, TCU, and SMU were being left behind.

The BIG is not a good option for Texas due to geography, having no long-term established rivalries, and being very limited in bringing tagalongs/buddies.
The PAC could offer Texas and friends a more encompassing package, but would the PAC have the will, the financial incentives and resources to do so? Maybe, if a network(s) at the time are strongly behind it with impressive and assured competitive distributions. Then there is all this "looking east" stance, and the Pacific coastline is really not all that close.
The SEC is ready-made for Texas if UT can get beyond some attitudinal and petty dynamics designed to cater to boosters, legislatures, and such. As noted, prime rivals are already in the SEC.
Texas days of having a conference whereby they are the "queen bee" in conference- disbursed revenue and managerial and political control, are numbered. If OU and one or two others leave, it becomes Texas as the big fish in a smaller pond, no matter how many G-5 additions are made.

What certain B12 schools are really going to do in 5 to 7 years is so dependant on unpredictable and perhaps surprising factors. Who is now engaged in preliminary negotiations with whom are not being leaked or confirmed from credible sources. If it has, I have not seen it...yet. Obviously, educated speculation is working within reasonable parameters, minus the ridiculous nonsense that makes its way to the Internet. Even on this larger forum, not referencing these generally thoughtful SEC-based threads, some bizzare stuff gets espoused.

To the topic, I believe Texas and Kansas to the SEC would be fine, given my personal critique about Kansas fb I mentioned earlier. If the SEC brass and schools would be satisfied with it, I won't complain. I do believe Mizzou needs to be a bit more physically/geographically bonded to the SEC, and adding Kansas would do that.
As to adding OU & oSu instead, that could be a quite pragmatic move. Both are solid when it comes to athletics and would incorporate well, I expect. Taking two from a moderate-sized state, whose academics are not pounding on the AAU's door, may not be so enticing to some in the SEC who are looking to enhance the overall academic profile of the conference.

Somehow, I believe the options matter will settle itself in due time, and the SEC will confidently know exactly which "two" to pursue.

But then again, as strange as this era has become, the SEC could end up with Kansas and Indiana. Did you know over six decades ago, Indiana almost became an SEC member? Had the Big 10 accepted Notre Dame at that time, it was planned to happen. Michigan did the dirty work for Indiana then.

If I was picking schools from the Big 10 to join the SEC, i don't know that Indiana would be my go to (limiting it to contigous states, Nebraska, Ohio State and even maybe Iowa would get calls first, I'd also check in on Maryland). But it would definitely be interesting.

If the Big 10 was going to poach the SEC, Missouri + Kentucky/Vandy would be the easy choices.

If the SEC took Kansas/OK, and the PAC got Texas/Tech/OK St./KSU, that would leave the Big 10 out right? Iowa State wouldn't be enough for a 15th member, but only as an additional 16th to make it even.

Well OdinFrigg was referring to a time before networks drove realignment so Indiana would not have been out of the question, but it would have been a heckuva an outlier in what then was even more of the Old South's SEC. So O.F. is just having some fun. And I might add in many cultural ways Indiana would be a better fit for the SEC than Kansas.

But you are up to speed on your reasoning. Of course the most logical Big 10 school for the SEC would be Ohio State. Other than being Heart of the Union the school's approach to sports is the most SEC like of any of the Big 10 schools.

It may or may not come as a surprise to you but Maryland had been in talks with the SEC on more than a few occasions over the course of several decades. We always thought they were too remote for the move to be practical. The only time I'd say it even got warm was in 2008-10. I'm sure that's when they were in talks with the B1G as well. Then their markets and their debt were the synergy that made them slightly more serious as a prospective member, but the SEC had better prospects.

I'm not a big fan of Kansas, but I do like what the pairing of Texas and Kansas does for sewing up rivalries. And while I'm fine with the pair of Oklahoma schools they don't do the same.