(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.

In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.

I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.