(03-25-2020 09:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2020 08:24 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Enough with the mental gymnastics. Big 12 isn't going to break up to break up. If they are smart, they have to show SC the money and it's potential money with its Trojan network as a tier 3 package.

Once SC agrees, UCLA will follow along with both AZ schools. Big 12 will now be 14 with two divisions. Best outcome would be if WV gets invited by the ACC but it don't see that happening so the two 7 school divisions would be..
UT, SC, TT, bu, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Ou, okie light, TCU, KS, ksu, Iowa St, WVU
9 game conference schedule
6 vs divisional schools
1 permanent cross over game (UT/ou, Tcu/bu, etc)
2 cross divisional games.

Think ppl over sell the pac 12 members outside the LA schools. AZ is growing rapidly and is becoming a fertile recruiting state. As a cfb fan, it would suck seeing the pac 12 lose its LA schools, however if the big 12 can be aggressive, this would solidify the conference as a mainstay.

1. The Big 12 was on the only P5 conference to suffer a loss in their average gross total revenue for 2018-9. Just note that this occurred in a year when the Horns had stellar numbers, but OU showed a decrease year over year due to a large donation for softball renovation the year before. So the Big 12 isn't really hurting, but they aren't really gaining either.

2. None of the PAC schools are going to break up their arrangement over sports revenue. The fantasy is that the Big 12 can attract anyone. It's not happening.

3. This is a sports forum right in the middle of no sports due to the COVID19 virus. Mental gymnastics is all anyone has to go on right now. And if coming up with speculative scenarios entertains those who create them then so be it.

4. The networks pay for all of this. They would make oodles more money from Oklahoma and Texas vs an SEC lineup or Big 10 lineup than they would make from the Big 12 remaining as is, or they would make by adding the tepid least watched members of the PAC 12.

5. The new mantra for TV execs is "Content value" and "Content multipliers". Texas and Oklahoma have Content value, but they only play each other once and nobody else in the Big 12 moves the needle nationally for them. Content multipliers are top brands with a national following who play other Content rich schools.

In the Big 10 those would be Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin and regional content games against Iowa and Michigan State.

In the SEC those would be Alabama, Florida, Texas A&M, Georgia, Auburn, and L.S.U., with strong regional interest in Tennessee, and occasionally a Mississippi school or Arkansas if they are up.

So FOX will be after Oklahoma and Texas as a pair because they make FOX a lot more money in the Big 10 rather than the Big 12 and ESPN will be Oklahoma and Texas because they them a lot more money in the SEC.

ESPN might also hold some interest in Kansas's hoops brand. And I would think FOX might as well. The Big 10 has strong basketball and Kansas could create more top match ups. In the SEC they become Kentucky's rival.

That's how the real world is going to operate.

But since this is the ultimate funny season having no sports at all to drive discussion your assertion of the Arizona and L.A. schools heading to the Big 12 is fair game. Just don't deride the other kooky scenarios. If it's reality you want to discuss then looking at the numbers (Gross Total Revenue, attendance, WSJ valuations, and Ratings) yield an entirely different picture.

Leave it to the SEC guy to leave out Academics...

Every SEC school is a Carnegie R1 institution. By mandate of the Reconstruction Constitutions most schools in the South had divided disciplines. I think the idea at the time was keep the leaders from different fields from associating, which is what helped build the Confederate leadership at schools that were established prior to Civil War. Of course the U.S. Military Academy was probably the deepest in such associations, but that's beside the point.

So Medicine and Law were the focus of one state school and Agriculture and Engineering at the other. Some states later rewrote their constitutions and got out from under some of that onus and others did not.

But with population moving South the trajectory for the SEC schools is bright. Alabama and Georgia have Medicine now taught at facilities not located at the campus sites. That hurts as well.

But tell me does Fresno State have an R1 rating?

I let your ignorance on this topic pass the first time I read it, but unless you went to Cal, or UW, or Stanford I don't think you have any room to talk. I did my Master's work at Emory.

When the SEC formed out of the old Southern Conference it was for Sports. The focus of the Conference was not Academics per se.

In fact I'd say we are headed for dichotomous purposes with regards to conferences. If a school is AAU like A&M, Mizzou, Florida, and Vanderbilt they have no problem having and forming academic alliances with other AAU schools. Why do they need their conference to do that for them? Conferences for the most part are regional sports associations.

Do you think the PAC has been hurt athletically by not having associations with better sports brands? Might the Big 10 have found better competition if not so bound to the academic associations than the additions of Rutgers and Maryland? Did the ACC learn a valuable lesson when they took what they felt was an academic outlier in Louisville, a school that has raised their football and basketball value to heights higher than they had with AAU Maryland?

So the SEC's 14 schools are all at least Carnegie R1 now. Our research money is growing, and intentionally so, but the requirements for AAU membership have guidelines which were contrary to the state constitutions that many Southern schools operated under through the 60's (so literally for 100 years). We may be late to the party, but I have a feeling we'll be fine in the years ahead.

BTW it was easier for private schools in the South to organize their disciplines so that's why Tulane, Vanderbilt, Emory, Duke, and other such privates rate so highly academically. They of course could afford to be more selective of their students, but also were free of the restraints that were placed upon state schools.