(08-31-2018 09:36 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 05:15 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 03:16 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have been saying for years OU is almost certain to be the first school to leave the B12 if it remains unstable. They are the most disgruntled member. KU has more political barriers to leaving unless it is obvious the B12 is no longer sustainable. Texas has the LHN money, a conference they mostly control, and a large financial advantage over the all the schools in the conferences, except for OU, whom they still hold a decent financial advantage over, so they have the least incentive to jump first. Plus they can wait and any conference will make room for them. I think the conference that wants to land Texas should focus on OU first, especially if it is the SEC.

Personally, if I was the SEC and going over 16 was not an issue and wanted to land Texas, I would go after OU first. I would start by saying OSU was not acceptable (like was done previously) and tell OU that you would prefer KU as it's partner. If the B1G counter offers OU/KU and they waffle, then tell OU that OSU is acceptable and the SEC would take the pair. That would probably trump the B1G offer, as if it got out OU declined, there would be political hell for them in OK. If the B1G doesn't counter, then hey you just got OU/KU.

Once you have OU, then Texas will face a fan revolt if they turn down a SEC offer. Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Arkansas would be too much to walk away from. Offer Texas and TTU. If you did not land KU with OU, then try to get Texas to come with Kansas, but if they insist on a school from Texas then Tech is the clear choice. When the B12 formed, originally Texas wanted to only come with A&M before the Texas legislature got involved and foisted TTU and Baylor on them. They might be fine with just A&M and themselves being the only SEC schools in Texas. I think TTU will improve dramatically in academics in the future as supposedly Texas wants to emulate the CA system which means pumping some money into TTU. Texas is growing like crazy and having 3 schools there would not be a bad thing going forward. The SEC would end up with ideally OU/KU/Texas/TTU and if not that then OU/OSU/Texas/TTU.

I think OU/Texas for 16 would be too much incoming football power and some schools are going to be pushed down a notch or two in the pecking order. Landing both makes more sense for the status quo of the SEC if you went to 18-20.

The article never got much attention as I think it focused more on the Longhorns' direction than anything, but ESPN published a piece several years ago around the time of all the upheaval that quoted an unnamed Kansas official. The official stated it would be ideal to land in the SEC if movement occurred. A subsequent quote from an unnamed SEC official said they didn't think we would go that direction.

Well, that was several years ago and the board has shuffled quite a bit since then. For one, I don't think the SEC was targeting KU in 2011 because our interests were focused on larger markets and there was also the potential we could land some ACC schools. That and KS was not a border state at that time. Only since the addition of Missouri have we successfully penetrated that region. In short, a lot has changed since then.

Sankey said not that long ago that our next expansion would mirror the last one and he specifically mentioned border states and AAU schools in his comments.

I've never bought the idea that KU was only interested in the Big Ten. Of course, I'm sure they would bolt for the B1G if invited, but I think the SEC works best for them actually and for some of the reasons you've stated.

1. The state of KS has a demographic problem which long term will lead to an enrollment problem for KU. Tapping into the growing Sun Belt states would help reverse some of those trends. The B1G has already proven that they won't band together and protect a school from losing AAU status(Nebraska). It's one of the reasons that these people who claim the B1G would be great for OU academics sound a bit foolish. KU's best bet for long term economic security lies in partnering with growing markets.

2. KS is a politically conservative state which actually puts it in stark contrast with the Chicago-based Big Ten. In my experience, once you move away from the Great Lakes states then the definition of "Midwestern" takes on a very different feel. The people I've met from states like KS, NE, and the Dakotas are much more "Southern" in their approach to life than people from OH, MI, or MN for example. I don't think there's a significant cultural divide between these regions in 2018 and so I think a school like KU would fit a lot better than some would first think.

3. As you've mentioned, athletically speaking, KU and the SEC fit like a glove. In the B1G, they tend to emphasize different minor sports and they also sponsor more of them which dings the bottom line. The approach in the SEC and at a school like KU is different. The only truly odd thing about KU is the lack of a strong football pedigree, but that could be improved. The passionate popularity of the Chiefs prove the people of that region will get behind football if they have a good competitive product. I also agree with your point about basketball potentially being a higher percentage of revenue if football really takes a hit one day. There's also the possibility that the NCAA loses control of the basketball championship and the economics of college basketball could change as more money is concentrated among the Power leagues. In that scenario, a school like KU becomes more attractive as well.

4. Kansas also has a national fan base and a strong relationship with ESPN. These go hand in hand as it tells us why each party is interested in the other. I think moving to the Big Ten would reduce opportunities for exposure overall. ESPN has the best national platform and the SEC is intertwined with the network. I think ESPN wants to keep KU in their fold and getting them into the SEC would be the easiest way to do it.

I'll even go so far as to say this. I wouldn't mind if the SEC made a strategic move and took Kansas first. For one, it would cut off the Big Ten to an even greater degree than the addition of Missouri did. You might still see Oklahoma in the B1G, of course, but it makes life difficult for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the SEC first.

At that point, maybe we end up with Texas and just stop at 16, but your notion of UT, TTU, OU, and KU would work very well also.

Your four points are all valid and fair observations and I have a made a few of them myself.

I am pretty sure that KU got an assurance from at least one conference that if they wanted to leave the B12 or the B12 falls apart they will get an invite, but that they had to improve the football facilities.

A new stadium has been discussed for awhile since ours is approaching it's 100 year anniversary and is showing it's age. Originally the number that was being tossed around was $150-180M for a partial renovation, then out of the blue, KU announces a $300M tear down and rebuild including a new football-only indoor practice facility. That is a substantial jump over what had been discussed previously. If KU did not have an assurance from a conference, I can't see them spending nearly twice as much for a stadium as they previously had planned, especially when the program is suffering through the worst stretch of football in it's history and the B12 is in a precarious situation. If the B12 imploded, and they got left out, that stadium would be a huge waste of money and anchor of debt around KU's neck. Too much of a gamble if you do not have assurances of a safe landing spot if things go sideways.

The only conferences that would really care about our FB stadium would be the B1G (some gate revenue sharing) and the SEC due to the large traveling fan bases/FB reputation. For the ACC, B12, and PAC a smaller renovation or none would have been fine. After we hired Jeff Long, I lean towards the SEC being involved in some way in that much larger number. He knows the SEC very well. He has experience raising large funds. He would know how to sell decision makers in the SEC.

OU is seriously considering a change. They prefer the SEC/B1G. I think they are talking to both. I think KU is as well, especially after our stadium announcement and AD hire. Makes sense as KU makes the best 16th for OU, if Texas is not considered, and is acceptable to both conferences.

Inviting KU first might be a little risky because who do you pair with them if Texas or OU don't come? I think KU would not lose money for the SEC, but I think we are more a break even option alone. OU/UT are schools that increase the payout easily, so I'd want to be certain of landing one of them first.

Well if the objective is to please ESPN and find an amenable way to eliminate the LHN by having it absorbed into a larger functioning network under their umbrella then I only see two options. Texas either goes to the SEC where the LHN can become a channel for the SEC West while the current main channel is dedicated to the SEC East and the overflow channel remains and is utilized more often for both. Or, Texas does join the ACC as a partial member and the LHN remains but might be shared with Notre Dame so that the appeal and reach is tremendously broadened. The latter option would be fraught with potential issues and Texas's main rivals would be in the SEC.

That leads to the question of would the SEC expand beyond 16 to at least 18? If so then the operative question becomes who is #18? Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, or West Virginia?

I think West Virginia will be part of the ACC's final moves. I also think that Texas Tech has a greater upward potential than O.S.U., and Iowa State would be a bold move obliquely into the Chicago market with Kansas and Missouri to assist in the interest.

It poses some interesting dynamics. And perhaps at 20 it is more workable. By assuring Texas Tech and OSU we overcome most obstacles and add two more games a week that might draw the interest of the 32 million living within their region.

The only way the Big 10 would stay out of this would be if they truly had a line on the 9 PAC schools that connected their dots from Nebraska to Utah to Arizona an up the Coast and expanded their AAU influence.

The PAC and Big 12 then would be tied into the fan interest of the Big 10 and SEC and the ACC could be stabilized simply by monopolizing the East Coast. By use of divisions they could reinvigorate what was the Old Big East core.