(04-25-2015 05:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:32 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Hell, people are already complaining about not playing certain teams enough times within 14-team conferences. Twenty teams is just asking for pitchforks and mob violence.

The ACC already gets 5 games out of Notre Dame. That's 2.5 games that ESPN can show on its main network. Add five more games from Texas and the 4-letter Mouse would have 5 games a year at their disposal. That means they could move additional ACC games to its rumored ACCN (assuming that happens). But what really moves eyeballs in ACC territory is basketball and olympic sports like lacrosse, soccer, etc.. I think there is space for one major conference centered around basketball (especially since that conference consumed huge parts of another in the same region). FSU trustees come off as a bunch of whiners, IMO. Besides, if FSU wanted to play a better football schedule then they're wasting their time playing FCS opponents.

Yes, I could see Kansas and Missouri as #'s 15 and 16 but we're stopping at 16 if reach that number. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are still tied to each other, somewhat. I eventually see them move together to another conference, which probably would be the SEC.

A twenty team conference with five teams per division means four games in division and then probably two games against every other division for a 10 game conference schedule. That increased conference schedule is the real kicker as to why a 20 team conference hurts. When it included a massive expansion along the Eastern Seaboard, that is when I thought The Big Ten might stomach the negatives.

Sixteen is much better than twenty though, twenty would have been a compromise in order to land the major targets.

Once again, I will say this, the likes of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State or Kansas and Kansas State are not tied at the hip. The situation is that one school cannot create a sinkhole situation where as the other State school slowly slips into "oblivion". Both have to have equal landings if any movement is to be allowed by the States. That doesn't mean they have to be in the same conference though.

Plenty of State's do just fine with their two State Institutions being in separate conferences. Iowa and Iowa State have existed just fine without being together. Look at Florida and Florida State for another example. Look at what good it has done for Texas A&M to get out from under the shadow of Big Brother Longhorn? Would it be better for Texas Tech to do the same and head out West in the opposite direction? If they work their cards right, they can get the positive of separation while still insuring themselves a protected match up against Texas every year. Funny how we see Texas and Texas A&M talking about renewing the rivalry now that Texas is just a few steps away from being fully under the banner of ESPN television rights.

Under some circumstances, yes, some states with two state schools can co-exist in separate conferences. However, in Oklahoma it seems to be the opposite case. I only have anecdotes but the fact that Oklahoma had chances to leave the Big 8/12 and chose not to point to something other than money. They could have followed A&M if they wanted to but didn't. I think that they believe that they don't have to separate from the Pokes to move conferences. If Mizzou opts to join the Big 10 then that risk might work out for them, assuming it's the Big 12 that gets parceled out and the ACC stays together. Now, I'm fine with OU in lieu of UM either way. However, the academic elites who actually run the conference may think differently. That's why I tend to believe the rumors of Mizzou-to-Big 10.

Yes, I have mentioned on the main realignment board that Texas could look at a situation where they would be able to play Tech, OU, A&M, even Baylor and TCU and also please their fans with games against major programs from other conferences. Oklahoma would also want to play as many games in Texas as they can.

If those academic elite can agree upon Nebraska instead of Missouri then I am sure they can agree upon Oklahoma instead of Missouri as well.

As to your first statement about Oklahoma and OK State, my previous statement answers that. Oklahoma could not leave the big 12 while leaving Ok State behind because Oklahoma leaving the big 12 irreparably damages the big 12. In a situation of Oklahoma leaving, Oklahoma State either has to go with them or they have to go to a different conference of perceived equal value as the one Oklahoma is leaving for.

Yes, Oklahoma will want to maintain games against Texas schools. Mostly though they will want to maintain their game with Texas. As long as they have THAT game in Dallas, then they will always be relevant in Texas.

(04-25-2015 05:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:32 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Hell, people are already complaining about not playing certain teams enough times within 14-team conferences. Twenty teams is just asking for pitchforks and mob violence.

The ACC already gets 5 games out of Notre Dame. That's 2.5 games that ESPN can show on its main network. Add five more games from Texas and the 4-letter Mouse would have 5 games a year at their disposal. That means they could move additional ACC games to its rumored ACCN (assuming that happens). But what really moves eyeballs in ACC territory is basketball and olympic sports like lacrosse, soccer, etc.. I think there is space for one major conference centered around basketball (especially since that conference consumed huge parts of another in the same region). FSU trustees come off as a bunch of whiners, IMO. Besides, if FSU wanted to play a better football schedule then they're wasting their time playing FCS opponents.

Yes, I could see Kansas and Missouri as #'s 15 and 16 but we're stopping at 16 if reach that number. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are still tied to each other, somewhat. I eventually see them move together to another conference, which probably would be the SEC.

A twenty team conference with five teams per division means four games in division and then probably two games against every other division for a 10 game conference schedule. That increased conference schedule is the real kicker as to why a 20 team conference hurts. When it included a massive expansion along the Eastern Seaboard, that is when I thought The Big Ten might stomach the negatives.

Sixteen is much better than twenty though, twenty would have been a compromise in order to land the major targets.

Once again, I will say this, the likes of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State or Kansas and Kansas State are not tied at the hip. The situation is that one school cannot create a sinkhole situation where as the other State school slowly slips into "oblivion". Both have to have equal landings if any movement is to be allowed by the States. That doesn't mean they have to be in the same conference though.

Plenty of State's do just fine with their two State Institutions being in separate conferences. Iowa and Iowa State have existed just fine without being together. Look at Florida and Florida State for another example. Look at what good it has done for Texas A&M to get out from under the shadow of Big Brother Longhorn? Would it be better for Texas Tech to do the same and head out West in the opposite direction? If they work their cards right, they can get the positive of separation while still insuring themselves a protected match up against Texas every year. Funny how we see Texas and Texas A&M talking about renewing the rivalry now that Texas is just a few steps away from being fully under the banner of ESPN television rights.

Under some circumstances, yes, some states with two state schools can co-exist in separate conferences. However, in Oklahoma it seems to be the opposite case. I only have anecdotes but the fact that Oklahoma had chances to leave the Big 8/12 and chose not to point to something other than money. They could have followed A&M if they wanted to but didn't. I think that they believe that they don't have to separate from the Pokes to move conferences. If Mizzou opts to join the Big 10 then that risk might work out for them, assuming it's the Big 12 that gets parceled out and the ACC stays together. Now, I'm fine with OU in lieu of UM either way. However, the academic elites who actually run the conference may think differently. That's why I tend to believe the rumors of Mizzou-to-Big 10.

Yes, I have mentioned on the main realignment board that Texas could look at a situation where they would be able to play Tech, OU, A&M, even Baylor and TCU and also please their fans with games against major programs from other conferences. Oklahoma would also want to play as many games in Texas as they can.

I tend to agree that Oklahoma wants to play as many games in Texas as they can. That is why should the Sooners come to the SEC we are going to need a second Texas school. Since the Sooners (or Cowboys) would help to deliver DFW then I think our choices would be Baylor, then Texas Tech. but not T.C.U..

(04-24-2015 09:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think in the B1Gs ideal world that ignores politics and contracts, they become the Big TenS, a 20 team mega conference that's essentially it's own mini league with 2 conferences

B1G West

Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas

B1G East

Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Virginia
North Carolina

Now that's totally unlikely to happen but you can see why it would be the B1G's ideal endgame since it puts them in command of most of the major brands and markets in the eastern 2/3rds of the US

I agree with you that if the B1G could land UNC and Texas and all those other schools I agree they would probably go to 20. To be honest I think any power conference would go to 18 or 20, if they could land the trifecta of Texas, OU and KU. So much additional money in those 3 as a unit (they basically are the B12 revenue engine). Throw in UNC (and to lesser extent UVA) and it is a no brainer. The problem is the B1G will be lucky to land one of those two and more likely they won't land either. Texas is the biggest possible addition in revenue for the B1G by twice any other school available by estimates I have seen. If Texas is seriously interested, I think the B1G moves mountains to get them. As a KU fan, if we ended up in the B1G a division of Texas, OU, NU, KU, and Missouri (or Iowa) it would be a dream ending. I'd be ecstatic with that. But like H1 and Transic said, I'm not sure how the original B1G schools would feel. There are some outside the box solutions to this, but a lot would depend on how often the new additions would like to play the original ten schools and vice versa.

My gut says the ACC for Texas because turning the LHN into the ACCN would make ESPN happy. The LHN without Texas high school sports on it as originally intended won't make the money ESPN wanted. I mean for Xmas this year they showed Bevo eating grass for five hours on it. It would take care of the ACC grumblings about getting a network as well. Makes the most sense for ESPN and satisfies the Texas desire for more eastern exposure if they get a couple Texas schools to come along to keep their Texas presence strong.

(04-25-2015 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 05:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:32 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Hell, people are already complaining about not playing certain teams enough times within 14-team conferences. Twenty teams is just asking for pitchforks and mob violence.

The ACC already gets 5 games out of Notre Dame. That's 2.5 games that ESPN can show on its main network. Add five more games from Texas and the 4-letter Mouse would have 5 games a year at their disposal. That means they could move additional ACC games to its rumored ACCN (assuming that happens). But what really moves eyeballs in ACC territory is basketball and olympic sports like lacrosse, soccer, etc.. I think there is space for one major conference centered around basketball (especially since that conference consumed huge parts of another in the same region). FSU trustees come off as a bunch of whiners, IMO. Besides, if FSU wanted to play a better football schedule then they're wasting their time playing FCS opponents.

Yes, I could see Kansas and Missouri as #'s 15 and 16 but we're stopping at 16 if reach that number. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are still tied to each other, somewhat. I eventually see them move together to another conference, which probably would be the SEC.

A twenty team conference with five teams per division means four games in division and then probably two games against every other division for a 10 game conference schedule. That increased conference schedule is the real kicker as to why a 20 team conference hurts. When it included a massive expansion along the Eastern Seaboard, that is when I thought The Big Ten might stomach the negatives.

Sixteen is much better than twenty though, twenty would have been a compromise in order to land the major targets.

Once again, I will say this, the likes of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State or Kansas and Kansas State are not tied at the hip. The situation is that one school cannot create a sinkhole situation where as the other State school slowly slips into "oblivion". Both have to have equal landings if any movement is to be allowed by the States. That doesn't mean they have to be in the same conference though.

Plenty of State's do just fine with their two State Institutions being in separate conferences. Iowa and Iowa State have existed just fine without being together. Look at Florida and Florida State for another example. Look at what good it has done for Texas A&M to get out from under the shadow of Big Brother Longhorn? Would it be better for Texas Tech to do the same and head out West in the opposite direction? If they work their cards right, they can get the positive of separation while still insuring themselves a protected match up against Texas every year. Funny how we see Texas and Texas A&M talking about renewing the rivalry now that Texas is just a few steps away from being fully under the banner of ESPN television rights.

Under some circumstances, yes, some states with two state schools can co-exist in separate conferences. However, in Oklahoma it seems to be the opposite case. I only have anecdotes but the fact that Oklahoma had chances to leave the Big 8/12 and chose not to point to something other than money. They could have followed A&M if they wanted to but didn't. I think that they believe that they don't have to separate from the Pokes to move conferences. If Mizzou opts to join the Big 10 then that risk might work out for them, assuming it's the Big 12 that gets parceled out and the ACC stays together. Now, I'm fine with OU in lieu of UM either way. However, the academic elites who actually run the conference may think differently. That's why I tend to believe the rumors of Mizzou-to-Big 10.

Yes, I have mentioned on the main realignment board that Texas could look at a situation where they would be able to play Tech, OU, A&M, even Baylor and TCU and also please their fans with games against major programs from other conferences. Oklahoma would also want to play as many games in Texas as they can.

I tend to agree that Oklahoma wants to play as many games in Texas as they can. That is why should the Sooners come to the SEC we are going to need a second Texas school. Since the Sooners (or Cowboys) would help to deliver DFW then I think our choices would be Baylor, then Texas Tech. but not T.C.U..

It will have to be Texas Tech, I think Baylor will want to stay with Texas and West Virginia.

(04-26-2015 08:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 05:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 03:32 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Hell, people are already complaining about not playing certain teams enough times within 14-team conferences. Twenty teams is just asking for pitchforks and mob violence.

The ACC already gets 5 games out of Notre Dame. That's 2.5 games that ESPN can show on its main network. Add five more games from Texas and the 4-letter Mouse would have 5 games a year at their disposal. That means they could move additional ACC games to its rumored ACCN (assuming that happens). But what really moves eyeballs in ACC territory is basketball and olympic sports like lacrosse, soccer, etc.. I think there is space for one major conference centered around basketball (especially since that conference consumed huge parts of another in the same region). FSU trustees come off as a bunch of whiners, IMO. Besides, if FSU wanted to play a better football schedule then they're wasting their time playing FCS opponents.

Yes, I could see Kansas and Missouri as #'s 15 and 16 but we're stopping at 16 if reach that number. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are still tied to each other, somewhat. I eventually see them move together to another conference, which probably would be the SEC.

A twenty team conference with five teams per division means four games in division and then probably two games against every other division for a 10 game conference schedule. That increased conference schedule is the real kicker as to why a 20 team conference hurts. When it included a massive expansion along the Eastern Seaboard, that is when I thought The Big Ten might stomach the negatives.

Sixteen is much better than twenty though, twenty would have been a compromise in order to land the major targets.

Once again, I will say this, the likes of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State or Kansas and Kansas State are not tied at the hip. The situation is that one school cannot create a sinkhole situation where as the other State school slowly slips into "oblivion". Both have to have equal landings if any movement is to be allowed by the States. That doesn't mean they have to be in the same conference though.

Plenty of State's do just fine with their two State Institutions being in separate conferences. Iowa and Iowa State have existed just fine without being together. Look at Florida and Florida State for another example. Look at what good it has done for Texas A&M to get out from under the shadow of Big Brother Longhorn? Would it be better for Texas Tech to do the same and head out West in the opposite direction? If they work their cards right, they can get the positive of separation while still insuring themselves a protected match up against Texas every year. Funny how we see Texas and Texas A&M talking about renewing the rivalry now that Texas is just a few steps away from being fully under the banner of ESPN television rights.

Under some circumstances, yes, some states with two state schools can co-exist in separate conferences. However, in Oklahoma it seems to be the opposite case. I only have anecdotes but the fact that Oklahoma had chances to leave the Big 8/12 and chose not to point to something other than money. They could have followed A&M if they wanted to but didn't. I think that they believe that they don't have to separate from the Pokes to move conferences. If Mizzou opts to join the Big 10 then that risk might work out for them, assuming it's the Big 12 that gets parceled out and the ACC stays together. Now, I'm fine with OU in lieu of UM either way. However, the academic elites who actually run the conference may think differently. That's why I tend to believe the rumors of Mizzou-to-Big 10.

Yes, I have mentioned on the main realignment board that Texas could look at a situation where they would be able to play Tech, OU, A&M, even Baylor and TCU and also please their fans with games against major programs from other conferences. Oklahoma would also want to play as many games in Texas as they can.

I tend to agree that Oklahoma wants to play as many games in Texas as they can. That is why should the Sooners come to the SEC we are going to need a second Texas school. Since the Sooners (or Cowboys) would help to deliver DFW then I think our choices would be Baylor, then Texas Tech. but not T.C.U..

It will have to be Texas Tech, I think Baylor will want to stay with Texas and West Virginia.

I think we might just get Oklahoma and Florida State. Then you guys can have Texas Tech too. But aside from your incessant troll attempts let's actually assume you may be correct. If the ACC lands Baylor, Texas and West Virginia then perhaps the old story line is coming true. The SEC gets Oklahoma and Kansas as some of our ESPN leaks have hinted at before. Maybe it is ESPN's intention to remove all of the Big 10's targets from the table. At this point I don't much care anymore and would just as soon have it over once and for all.

The options are still these in no particular order:
1. SEC lands Virginia Tech and N.C. State / ACC lands Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State or Baylor
2. SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma / SEC moves SECN headquarters to Dallas and the ACCN is born in Charlotte. ACC lands West Virginia
3. SEC loses Missouri to the Big 10 and adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. ACC adds West Virginia and the Network location swap still happens.
4. SEC lands Oklahoma and Kansas / ACC lands Texas, Baylor and West Virginia and the LHN becomes the ACCN
5. SEC lands Oklahoma and Florida State / ACC lands Texas, Baylor and West Virginia
6. SEC lands Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas to move to 18. ACC lands West Virginia, Cincinnati and UConn to go to 18. (This is my favorite scenario for you guys)
7. SEC lands Virginia Tech, Florida State, N.C. State and Clemson. The Big 10 lands Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Notre Dame. The Big 12 lands Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Louisville.