JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: Big XII makes TV deal official
(05-08-2012 10:12 AM)Sammy11 Wrote: (05-08-2012 09:35 AM)JRsec Wrote: (05-08-2012 09:22 AM)Sammy11 Wrote: The fact is I don't see more than five schools going anywhere anytime soon. So even a simple majority is doubtful. Add to that the complications of no single league taking six or more and the existing 6 year granting of rights and it all seems close to impossible. You'd need two leagues working together to invite at least six and maybe 8. That would present a legal risk for the schools being left behind having plenty of ammo for tortuous interference where it would be pretty clear the two inviting leagues tampered.
The logistics required would be crazy.
Four to the PAC, two or three to the B1G, and two to the SEC would be the only way it happens. But you avoid the legalities by organizing the steps this way, silent negotiations in which 8 or more teams are guaranteed the moves privately and contingent upon a successful vote to disband. Then the moves happen all at once. There is no interference, tortuous or otherwise, if the league disbands.
Depending on how the commissioners of the PAC, B1G, and SEC see the future of the upper tier, one more big move may be all it takes. If 64 is the number of upper tier teams they want then whatever happens, if anything, will happen quickly and decisively, whether to the Big 12 or ACC. If the number they see is 72 (a better number for many reasons) then it will take a lot longer to get there, and we will have likely seen the end of this round of big moves and should have 3 or 4 years of peace before something else happens.
Again my only point is that the possibility of movement is not precluded.
JR
Movement is not precluded IF a complicated set of dominoes falls just right. For that to happen the Big Ten, SEC, or ACC would have to take 2 or 4 of WVU, KU, KSU, ISU, BU, and TCU.
The SEC, ACC, and B1G decided against all of them. The odds of them working tirelessly to get them out of a GOR isn't happening when each league has more available targets providing similar value.
You left out the PAC. If Rutgers and UConn round out 16 in the ACC and Notre Dame moves to the B1G Delany will look to pair someone with them. I think that would be either Oklahoma, or Kansas. In either case two more would be needed. It could be Texas, but the Big 10 won't take Tech. That's why I believe the PAC would take the Horns, Red Raiders, Bears and Wildcats. The Big 10 would take I.S.U. only because they would need 1 more after KU, OU, and ND. It would really breakdown their conference more equitably. West: Nebraska, OU, KU, I.S.U. Northwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois Northeast: Michigan, Michigan State, ND, Northwestern East: Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State.
West Virginia and OSU balance the SEC nicely: West: Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M North: Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn South: Alabama, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State.
The PAC is equally obvious: North: Oregon, OrSt., Wash., WSU Coast: Cal, USC, UCLA, Stanford, South: Arizona, ASU, Utah, Texas Tech East: Texas, Baylor, Colorado, Kansas State.
While I don't think we are going there (right now) I'm just saying that the movitvation would be simple. It is one of the few scenario's that gives both the PAC and Big 10 valuable adds, with no real duds. The Big 10 adds AAU schools. ND and OU are national brands, and the lowest ranked school in the Big 10 would be OU and NU at 101st. The PAC outside of the California four (and Washington) are not exclusionary academically. It would satisfy the SEC, and the ACC would be happy as a clam (except for F.S.U. and Clemson) who aren't happy anyway.
Your only victim here would be T.C.U. who would be back in a league with schools nearer their own size until the upper tier decided to expand to 72. Fluid situations usually take the path of least resistance. The resistance here are Network affiliations which is why none of this is likely to happen anytime soon, and indeed has not already happened. JR
|
|