(07-31-2013 07:43 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 08:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 10:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think the window of UT-austin entertaining independence is done.

They got stuck with the kids in the divorce and now there are 3 TX schools (all with sizable followings in the legislature) that are completely and totally dependent on them and only them for their survival as P5 schools because no other P5 conference will even entertain the idea of adding any of them without UT also (and most wouldn't take them even then).

The only realistic scenario available to UT for moving at this point is to convince one of the conferences to take the politically inseparable package of UT/OU/OSU/TT...and IMO only the PAC would open to taking that group. By saving the public school parasite, UT can make the case for ditching the two smaller private school parasites.

I also think the B12 is stuck at 10 teams for similar reasons; no school in the remaining Plains States want to be in a separate division from TX and OK.

The Big 12 is standing in a relatively fragile spot within the Big 5. When they get their new division and when they have "security council" control of it, are the four conferences with more programs than the
big 12 going to vote in stipulations based on the number of conference members in regards to things like forming up divisions? If we see four divisions starting up and even possibly a conference tournament based on division winners, will the Big 12 still end up missing out on that?

It is possible that the other four conference might attempt to force their hand to either expand with programs that aren't exactly desired or to break apart the Big 12 and move into the other four conferences.

I mean, why wouldn't the SEC, ACC, B1G and PAC do that to the Big 12? The Big 12, following their current method, is absolutely the odd man out and they keep tossing wood on the fire every time they talk about how their current set up allows them to make more money individually than anyone else. Why would the other four conferences allow them a conference tournament of four team when they only have ten teams to lead up to that with?


In regards to 10th's comment, if the above happens as I am surmising, there is no way that the PAC will end up being able to cherry pick UT/OU/OSU/TTU. That is an outdated concept and when some of those schools start seeing their other options, Texas will once again show just how much it doesnt wish to go West. Just my opinion of course.

Hear, hear He1nous! If I could give you more rep points I would. Your assessment of the PAC's options (at this juncture of realignment) is exactly correct. Many things have become apparent since Larry Scott made the offer and the first / second Texahoma deal fell through.

Obviously networks have a high degree of control over who goes where. When the first deal was offered almost everyone was still on the table for the Big 10 and SEC as it looked as though the ACC was available to them both. Now that has changed. The ACC "might" have 1 or 2 that don't make the move to D4 but there are plenty of options for them to go to 16 anyway. Notre Dame did really help to bring the security they needed to agree to the grant of rights.

Now the emphasis will be upon marketing the new division, the structure of its playoff system, and determining how many teams it will take to make it work as well at a level the schools involved have grown accustomed to in the past. If the Big 12 went to 16 or 18 teams from the existing pool they will only fall farther behind the other conferences with each new addition. If they don't grow equally they don't fit the desired new profile that will emerge. It will be far more profitable from an advertising standpoint to have 4 conferences and to spread the remaining brands among them. While that sounds simple enough the barrier will be FOX vs ESPN deciding how to do that.

ESPN will want Texas and FOX has its hooks into Oklahoma. ESPN is trying to sew up Kansas. West Virginia is still an open issue. Beyond those plus Oklahoma State it is a crap shoot. If this is to be solved there will be serious negotiations and nobody is going to get Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State together. I think this issue has to be resolved before we get movement on Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young and some of the other deserving schools.

That is why a combination of Buffalo and Kansas, or Connecticut and Kansas would be in line for the Big 10. Oklahoma State / Kansas State and West Virginia would be possible for the SEC. Oklahoma and OK St. / KSU, Iowa State and Texas Tech could move to the PAC. And Texas, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be up for the ACC.

With a line up like that the conferences would stand at 16, 16, 16, and 18 teams (if everyone in the ACC moves up). Connecticut would likely be off the table. The SEC could look around and see if they wanted to try to develop some markets out of the remainder. The ACC would be set. The Big 10 might look at expanding too, but could just as easily stand pat. The PAC could pick up New Mexico and U.N.L.V. or Hawaii, or B.Y.U. if so inclined.

In the SEC's case they could opt for a greater presence in Florida and take South Florida, or go for a new market in North Carolina and look at E.C.U. or expand its Northern edge and look at Cincinnati. If the SEC decided to stand pat that would be a win as well. But something is going to take place that resembles this, or another form of a brokered deal, if something happens with the Big 12.