(10-10-2017 11:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Just a couple of thoughts.

What if the key to getting a deal done with the Big 12 powers is something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Here's my thinking...

I think it's possible that Texas Tech could attempt to ride the coattails of UT, , but it would be an addition purely for political reasons and not content driven.

TCU, by contrast, is in the middle of DFW which eases travel even for teams in that region of the county. Perhaps most importantly, TCU has achieved a level of consistent success that has eluded Texas Tech for the most part. It's flat out hard to recruit to Lubbock whereas TCU is swimming in the middle of one of the largest talent pools in the country.

From a political perspective though, Texas Tech could still probably influence the Legislature to force UT to take them along. Adding TCU though maximizes exposure in every major region of Texas. I think just as important, it keeps travel reasonable for the schools and fans out there. This market is truly gigantic and dominating every corner of it, I think, will pay dividends.

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

Baylor is done most likely after their scandal plagued years, but having 4 TX schools in the Power leagues is a good way to retain regionalism.

I think it's certainly an interesting concept. West Virginia then is eligible for the ACC.

But in crunching the valuations Texas and Oklahoma can cover two lesser values and still turn us a profit. They can't cover three and do it. And outside of Texas and Oklahoma there is nobody in the Big 12 that pays their own way, not even Kansas. But that is also true for the Big 10. And since the Big 10 can't take OSU due to academics and they can't take Texas Tech still a problem with academics just not as much of one and they are definite problem logistically. I would think the Big 10 would have to be thinking that if they offered a foursome it would be Kansas and Iowa State to go with Texas and Oklahoma.

Therefore I think Texas and Oklahoma cover their in state schools. So Texa-homa is feasible, but not six. And Texa-homa likely trumps a B1G offer for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

So if you add L.S.U., A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri to the Texa-homa four you get pretty much everything that Texas could want and a lot of things for Oklahoma to build upon. With Texas and A&M you don't need T.C.U. to carry DFW completely. Annual games can still be played at Jerry World for the sake of SEC exposure. A&M/TTU could be played annually at that site, Arkansas / Okl. St., and of course Texas/OU. L.S.U. could schedule a neutral site game in Houston if need be.

But remember if we move on the Big 12 in that kind of a way and succeed then the B1G is going to double down on the ACC in 2035. So we need to save 2 slots for either North Carolina & Duke, or Clemson and Florida State or for North Carolina and Virginia Tech unless we truly want to go gaudy and take 6 to move to 24.