(09-14-2013 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 11:46 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 11:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 11:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if the sec invited texas.........

would aggie support or block it?

They would vote against it. They couldn't block it without 4 more votes to do so. That's where it gets dicey. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina might vote with them. But, Florida would like to add more AAU schools. So it's unclear what the outcome would be.

It would require a 75% vote right? A&M, Missouri and Arkansas for sure could be counted on for no votes. Schools like LSU would probably dislike the idea. I highly doubt Alabama would be for it. I bet atleast one of the Mississippi's wouldn't vote for them (State). Enough votes could be found to block them I'm sure.

As we both know though, Texas is very unlikely to ever "degrade" themselves in such a way as to beg to follow in the footsteps of the Aggies. They have other options.


On a side note, looks like Shaggybevo forum has been shuttered up.

Arkansas wouldn't vote against adding Texas. It was Arkansas that tried to get A&M and UT to follow us to the SEC from the SWC. The UofA and the UofT have had a great relationship for years.

Yeah, I don't count count Arkansas or L.S.U. as no votes. L.S.U. would love to get back into Texas recruiting as effectively as they did from the 20's through the early 50's. I don't know about Missouri, but they once loved their slim pipeline to recruits from Texas.

I'll count the no votes as Texas A&M and Missouri just because I trust USAFMEDIC, but the fear that F.S.U., Louisville, Georgia Tech, and Clemson are coming on board are no longer there. Georgia is trying to get into AAU and would welcome all help. Florida wants Texas for the SEC's version of the CIC (and we do have one). Kentucky truly won't care and for that matter neither will Alabama or Auburn. I count two votes against and 12 votes in favor, if I'm pushed to make a call. But Texas I'm sure will counsel with ESPN and do what is best in their interest. That is what they have always done. I don't see them going to the PAC or Big 10. Independent is a viable possibility.

In the end the best chance the SEC has to get Oklahoma and Texas would be in having Arkansas, Missouri, L.S.U. and Texas A&M for them to have old rivals to play again thereby satisfying their really really pissed off fan base.

I think the fact that Texas tries to bully other conference members and run the show is the biggest obstacle for Mizzou in voting YES... maybe in the SEC they would not be able to do that but you can be sure they would try. I don't hate UT. I just bought my daughter a Longhorn jersey. I enjoyed the games with them. I just hate the way they conduct business.

Medic and 10th, the way I see it, the University of Texas and the SEC are very similar to a rich couple considering a marriage. Both parties are strong enough to know that more than love, attraction, similar interests, and future goals, the most important part of making their marriage work is a good pre-nup. As long as all parties are bound by an agreement before hand that leaves no wiggle room for Texas, it could work. At least take comfort in knowing that if Texas, Oklahoma, UNC, and UVA were all up for grabs, Texas would probably be the last pick because of our membership's priorities and needs.

The A&M vs Bama game got a 24.0 rating in Austin....why even consider them when their fans will watch A&M SEC games out spite and envy anyway?

At this point UT adds nothing to the conference but a constant headache.

Personally I believe that if the SEC could add Texas and Oklahoma that it would make a future decision for Virginia and North Carolina to join the SEC that much easier. Together with Texas A&M, Missouri, Vanderbilt, and Florida the academic core of the SEC would be extremely solid. That way we are giving basically Southern schools an academic alternative to Big 10 membership.

But heck, if nothing happens to the ACC the SEC should look at taking Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia.

So here you guys are... Have you given up on the CR board?

(09-20-2013 04:18 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So here you guys are... Have you given up on the CR board?

This is OUR CR board. Where the "old timers" go. Don't know about the others, I still post there on occasion but ever since they changed the name, general posters have filled that forum with a bunch of threads I have zero desire to take part in.

You mean you're tired of "Pimp my G5 School", "Rumor: UCLA to the B1G!" and "TT vs UH: midget slap fight continues!" ??

(09-20-2013 07:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 04:18 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So here you guys are... Have you given up on the CR board?

This is OUR CR board. Where the "old timers" go. Don't know about the others, I still post there on occasion but ever since they changed the name, general posters have filled that forum with a bunch of threads I have zero desire to take part in.

Its just a small cadre of folks who are trying to keep this board alive and relevant. We appreciate any guests who want to drop in. But you aren't going see a lot of reactionary threads over here. Its 'quiet' in these parts.

True, its fun to speculate but I think we all know the SEC's MO is to wait for schools to approach the conference and if you are that lucky combination of someone we really want that wont disrupt harmony, then you'll be asked to formally apply.

This is also the place to be for those who can find the shift key on their keyboards.

(09-23-2013 09:43 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  This is also the place to be for those who can find the shift key on their keyboards.

You've noticed that as well. Must be an e.e. cumming disciple.

(09-23-2013 09:43 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  This is also the place to be for those who can find the shift key on their keyboards.

OK. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT COMMENT?

The problem with SEC expansion is that I don't really see any options that make sense.

NC State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, VT, and WVU are all GOR-bound.

Texas, FSU, Louisville, and Clemson are going to get blocked.

Georgia Tech and Tulane have already left the SEC before.

SMU isn't quite ready yet. ECU is a "maybe" - but I think schools like UF want something different. Cincy is out of range. USF/UCF are redundant. Rice is too small. UH is a little bit of a reach - and Texas A&M might block that anyway.

The only options that make sense would involve either:

1. The death of a P5 conference - good luck with that.
2. The growth of a current AAC school - possible, but the SEC's bar is REALLY high.

I just don't see how the SEC can expand at this point. I think the SEC should just stay where it is for about 10 years and then reassess the two conditions mentioned earlier.

(09-23-2013 02:29 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with SEC expansion is that I don't really see any options that make sense.

NC State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, VT, and WVU are all GOR-bound.

Texas, FSU, Louisville, and Clemson are going to get blocked.

Georgia Tech and Tulane have already left the SEC before.

SMU isn't quite ready yet. ECU is a "maybe" - but I think schools like UF want something different. Cincy is out of range. USF/UCF are redundant. Rice is too small. UH is a little bit of a reach - and Texas A&M might block that anyway.

The only options that make sense would involve either:

1. The death of a P5 conference - good luck with that.
2. The growth of a current AAC school - possible, but the SEC's bar is REALLY high.

I just don't see how the SEC can expand at this point. I think the SEC should just stay where it is for about 10 years and then reassess the two conditions mentioned earlier.

I tend to think that's what all parties are doing... waiting for a few years to see how these TV deals shake out and also the end of the GoR agreements.

(09-23-2013 02:38 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 02:29 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  The problem with SEC expansion is that I don't really see any options that make sense.

NC State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, VT, and WVU are all GOR-bound.

Texas, FSU, Louisville, and Clemson are going to get blocked.

Georgia Tech and Tulane have already left the SEC before.

SMU isn't quite ready yet. ECU is a "maybe" - but I think schools like UF want something different. Cincy is out of range. USF/UCF are redundant. Rice is too small. UH is a little bit of a reach - and Texas A&M might block that anyway.

The only options that make sense would involve either:

1. The death of a P5 conference - good luck with that.
2. The growth of a current AAC school - possible, but the SEC's bar is REALLY high.

I just don't see how the SEC can expand at this point. I think the SEC should just stay where it is for about 10 years and then reassess the two conditions mentioned earlier.

I tend to think that's what all parties are doing... waiting for a few years to see how these TV deals shake out and also the end of the GoR agreements.

I'm of a similar opinion. I don't see any significant movement for the next decade or so...

I think that imperfect as it may be, the ACC may prove to be more resilient than many think that it is. I certainly don't see it getting parsed out prior to the expiration of its GoR.

As for the Big 12, our issues (particularly in terms of markets/footprint) have been rehashed many times. At the same time, it has 2 strong football anchors and 1 strong basketball anchor, matched with a number of schools that are seen (rightly or wrongly) as less-than-marquee brands. That makes a large-scale GoR-buster raid unlikely, so I think that it's likely to remain intact at least until close to the expiration of the GoR. As that gets close, it may be time to sit back with some popcorn, certainly.

There are simply too many variables to be decided during, and shortly after January, for definitive statements to be made on either side of the realignment argument. Structure, stipends, playoff access, constraints upon the number of divisions a conference may have, all of these must be decided before we know if there will be 4 or 5 conferences. We have to know whether the ACC will get a network before we know how comfortable they will be in their GOR. If they get locked into revenue that is 15 million below what a Big 10 network or SEC network is providing in two years then they could be vulnerable again. I also add to this mix the extreme angst the Longhorn faithful have over the direction of that program, their desire to obtain the same scheduling luxury that N.D. has, and their desire to hang onto the LHN. Texas's desire to change leadership and direction could easily extend to how they see their future in the Big 12.

I respect the opinions of those who think things are settled for a decade, but I also acknowledge that the very structure of the sport could lead to bigger changes if that structure indeed changes. I also acknowledge that things are unstable around the bell cow (pun intended) in the Big 12, and that there are programs in the ACC that were promised a network who might not feel so peachy if it fails to materialize. Hence my position that its almost 5 months too early to be making predictions.

And to Olive and Blue, everyone assumes that Texas and Oklahoma will eschew the SEC in favor of academics. Maybe? Maybe not? The SEC is closer. The SEC is contiguous. The SEC contains two of their former big rivals in Arkansas and Texas A&M. The SEC contains an older rival in L.S.U., and Missouri is close enough to count. If the SEC ever moved to 18 teams and took Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia the breakdown of divisions would have the Longhorns and Sooners playing what were once the top 6 schools in their region and (Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri) that would make for quite a division.

As far as Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina voting against the top money making program in the nation whose inclusion would spike SEC content and deliver along with A&M a rock solid 26 million viewers is danged unlikely, especially now that none of that 4 are worried about the inclusion of their instate rivals into the SEC. Aggie and maybe Missouri would stand alone on this and that's not enough to stop it. I might also add that while the Aggie fans would be against it and understandably so that the Aggie administration might look at the political interests and profit angle a bit differently. If such a move returned Missouri to playing many more games closer to their campus I can't see their administration blowing up about it either.

Florida and Georgia would enjoy academic relationships with the Longhorns and Sooners. Okie State would be an accommodation but by adding West Virginia and its markets to the win win of Oklahoma and Texas the 4 combined would make everyone concerned a heckuva lot more money and that, not vitriol, moves the needle. With Kansas available to the Big 10, Texas Tech and T.C.U. providing access to Texas with one state school and one large market addition in T.C.U. (which is a secular school operation) the PAC would still have interest in this game even if these are not their preferences. Then if anyone picks up Baylor, Kansas State or Iowa State it becomes very doable. Heck if Texas goes to the ACC as a hybrid the SEC could still pull it off by adding Baylor as the second Texas entry into the SEC.

So, while all of this is speculation, and Texas and OU could go essentially anywhere they please, I think in the end they will opt for the most money that they can earn while playing the games their fan bases want to see, and that's not in the PAC or Big 10. They in essence can have the cream of the old SWC plus the Oklahomas and Missouri by becoming the SEC West. It may not be their preferred option, but it is the one that balances their combined interests while still enhancing the bottom line.

Obviously I disagree with JR about how such a vote would turn out.

I don't think any former B12 south schools has a chance of being voted in simply because the SEC West doesn't want to become unwinnable for a lot of programs used to winning a lot.

Sort of the same reason why the fantasy national conference of Bama, Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, Michigan etc wont ever happen because all those schools are used to winning but in that league, half of them would be sub .500 every year.

Regardless, every Big 12 south school will receive a loud and emphatic "Hell the F*^#k No!" from College Station....and Vandy will abstain :)

(09-23-2013 05:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously I disagree with JR about how such a vote would turn out.

I don't think any former B12 south schools has a chance of being voted in simply because the SEC West doesn't want to become unwinnable for a lot of programs used to winning a lot.

Sort of the same reason why the fantasy national conference of Bama, Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, Michigan etc wont ever happen because all those schools are used to winning but in that league, half of them would be sub .500 every year.

Regardless, every Big 12 south school will receive a loud and emphatic "Hell the F*^#k No!" from College Station....and Vandy will abstain :)

I've always understood your position, but why do you think Vanderbilt would abstain?

(09-23-2013 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 05:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously I disagree with JR about how such a vote would turn out.

I don't think any former B12 south schools has a chance of being voted in simply because the SEC West doesn't want to become unwinnable for a lot of programs used to winning a lot.

Sort of the same reason why the fantasy national conference of Bama, Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, Michigan etc wont ever happen because all those schools are used to winning but in that league, half of them would be sub .500 every year.

Regardless, every Big 12 south school will receive a loud and emphatic "Hell the F*^#k No!" from College Station....and Vandy will abstain :)

I've always understood your position, but why do you think Vanderbilt would abstain?

Didn't Vandy abstain from the Missouri vote too? I think it was 11 ayes and one voting to abstain. Maybe I am dreaming but I thought so...