(05-20-2014 10:54 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I'm a little more optimistic on the choices, Vandiver. Here is how I would see it for the SEC considering the landscape:

HR: Texas, OU
Triple: KU (not a HR because cultural fit would be a work in progress)
Double: OSU (Mississippi State with better football and revenue ability), ISU (we could really benefit from their academics)
Single: KSU, TT, WVU (with a lot of guarantees to improve academics and strict controls on their fans, both home and away. Flagship status gives them a fighting chance, although slim.)
K: TCU (should be the Texas anchor of the MWC)

My evaluation was based on what the teams bring to the SEC. Save for the death of the B12, its hard for me to see the value in KSU, TT, WVU, TCU.

(05-20-2014 10:54 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I'm a little more optimistic on the choices, Vandiver. Here is how I would see it for the SEC considering the landscape:

HR: Texas, OU
Triple: KU (not a HR because cultural fit would be a work in progress)
Double: OSU (Mississippi State with better football and revenue ability), ISU (we could really benefit from their academics)
Single: KSU, TT, WVU (with a lot of guarantees to improve academics and strict controls on their fans, both home and away. Flagship status gives them a fighting chance, although slim.)
K: TCU (should be the Texas anchor of the MWC)

Where do you put Baylor?

(05-19-2014 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Well it depends on how petty UT is. According to them they won't EVER play someone who dates to leave their conference (proven false by their playing both OU and Arky after both left the SWC)

Maybe OU is willing to call that bluff (it's a complete bluff) but it'd be entertaining none the less

That is another false assumption. We are talking about an entire dissolution of the Big 12. Anything else and its not enough. It is all or nothing. So with that being said, that is including Texas being of the parties that want this to happen. That means there wouldn't be animosity between Texas and Oklahoma. Understand?

It only takes 8, although 9 is likely.

I really don't see two schools being overwhelmed by the others. There would be some legal issues to that. Yes it Could be done just like how Maryland Could leave the ACC for The Big Ten. That doesn't mean it wouldn't get very ugly.

(05-20-2014 08:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Well it depends on how petty UT is. According to them they won't EVER play someone who dates to leave their conference (proven false by their playing both OU and Arky after both left the SWC)

Maybe OU is willing to call that bluff (it's a complete bluff) but it'd be entertaining none the less

That is another false assumption. We are talking about an entire dissolution of the Big 12. Anything else and its not enough. It is all or nothing. So with that being said, that is including Texas being of the parties that want this to happen. That means there wouldn't be animosity between Texas and Oklahoma. Understand?

It only takes 8, although 9 is likely.

I really don't see two schools being overwhelmed by the others. There would be some legal issues to that. Yes it Could be done just like how Maryland Could leave the ACC for The Big Ten. That doesn't mean it wouldn't get very ugly.

H1 I agree with you in principle and if there is one left behind I think it would be T.C.U. The lack of depth in athletics, the sparsity of home game crowds, and their inability to sustain top flight football in a P5 conference could all come into play. If somebody gets left out and UConn gets in I think it will be T.C.U.

It truly seems that you and I have come full circle. The dissolution of the Big 12 was really one of the first agendas we tackled and I think if it happens it will come down to compromise. Everyone will get something they want and something they otherwise might have passed on. Now how that plays out we'll see. There are 9 slots left to 64 if you count N.D. as being part of the ACC. XLance seems to think that ESPN will get a part of the PAC in exchange for Texas. I'm not inclined to think that will happen, but it is possible. I'm not sure how this plays out, but I think there will have to be a workaround with some other schools changing conferences to make it equitable. If not somebody gets hosed. If somebody figures out how to do it then I think it happens. If Texas goes to the PAC and the Big 10 wants Oklahoma, I think the SEC would hold out for Kansas, or vice versa. We'll see. It is still more profitable to have 4 conferences and the structure for profitability in advertising for the playoffs would certainly seem to indicate it's viable.

(05-20-2014 01:03 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 10:54 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I'm a little more optimistic on the choices, Vandiver. Here is how I would see it for the SEC considering the landscape:

HR: Texas, OU
Triple: KU (not a HR because cultural fit would be a work in progress)
Double: OSU (Mississippi State with better football and revenue ability), ISU (we could really benefit from their academics)
Single: KSU, TT, WVU (with a lot of guarantees to improve academics and strict controls on their fans, both home and away. Flagship status gives them a fighting chance, although slim.)
K: TCU (should be the Texas anchor of the MWC)

Where do you put Baylor?

Oops... I think Baylor is a double. Several years ago, they were a single. The athletic program has made huge strides in short order.

Baylor is interesting. They have a growing university that is large by private standards, good undergrad rankings, and competitive sports programs. However, I think they really have only one possible landing spot, if things fall apart for the B12, and that is in the ACC as a Texas tag along. Really their fate is in the hands of others for the most part.

PAC: Won't take them due to religious affiliations (see Utah over BYU and PAC/B12 2010).
SEC: A&M would go crazy. Also the SEC seems to be going for large public schools with new markets. Baylor is 4th in their state and private. Either of the OK schools would help in TX (OU in a big way) while also getting you into OK as well. TTU is bigger in TX as well.
B1G: Not AAU and not a state flagship.
ACC: Fits right in with all the other privates in the ACC, academically is good enough, if the ACC goes west to B12 country then they are landing UT and UT might require Baylor be added as well.

My guess is the SEC would prefer B12 schools in this order more or less before Baylor: OU, Texas, KU, OSU, and TTU definitely. Would likely prefer one or more (maybe all) of ISU, WVU, KSU to Baylor. The only school they are definitely above is TCU who has struggled mightily in the B12 and is the 5th largest brand in TX (Houston or SMU might arguably be about the same). If Baylor had no religious affiliation that would help, but that is part of their identity, and they are not giving that up and rightfully so. This sucks because they are more worthy of P5 status than schools like Washington State, Oregon State, Utah, WF and a few others, IMO. But they could get screwed and it is fairly likely unless Texas protects them.

IMO they are a single for the SEC and only if they are added as a 2nd TX school to help gain a greater share of the state and only if none of UT, OU, OSU, or TTU are available. As a 3rd TX school they are a negative (K) for the SEC. Don't become the B12 and over-saturate TX.

And to be fair to Baylor people, there is a scenario where I could see Kansas getting left out as well, even if it is unlikely.

OU and KU would be a home run for me, as a Mizzou guy. They would blend right in with the SEC. It might take a little while but, being that the PAC 12 invited Utah and Colorado, it's not that much of a stretch to invite KU. OU and KU would both become contiguous schools with the rest of the SEC. If you look at a map the SEC would be a nice little block. Just call it the South Is Rising Again. KU BB is a massive upside and their FB program would improve just like Missouri. OU football would add a whole new dimension to the SEC. We could make a great west division. Later the SEC could focus on two eatern schools if expansion to 18-20 occurs.

(05-24-2014 01:07 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  OU and KU would be a home run for me, as a Mizzou guy. They would blend right in with the SEC. It might take a little while but, being that the PAC 12 invited Utah and Colorado, it's not that much of a stretch to invite KU. OU and KU would both become contiguous schools with the rest of the SEC. If you look at a map the SEC would be a nice little block. Just call it the South Is Rising Again. KU BB is a massive upside and their FB program would improve just like Missouri. OU football would add a whole new dimension to the SEC. We could make a great west division. Later the SEC could focus on two eatern schools if expansion to 18-20 occurs.

I don't know many that would disagree with that, Medic. OU and KU would be outstanding, and the cherry on top is that it would really tick off the Big 10.

At the end of the day, I just don't see the conferences coordinating with each other. While there has been reasons for expansion for all of them, I think every move has been independent of each other. The PAC-10 looked at becoming the PAC-16 and settled on the PAC-12 because they felt the schools added brought money and made the conference better. When Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were rejected, it was because the leaders felt money was good already and they didn't want to upset what was a pretty good balance even for a bit more money and good name programs. The Big Ten took a big national name and a few east coast schools they thought they needed to keep a good presence on the east coast. The ACC tried to expand in the northeast. The SEC went after the Texas market/recruiting and added Missouri as another good state.

My point with all of this is that the conferences have never worked together on this and have always done what they think is in their best interest. Not one of them is going to expand with teams they don't think add to their conference and none of them have the goal of 4x16 conferences, thus destroying the Big 12/ACC. Any of them would take Texas in a heartbeat and under the right circumstances, many would take Oklahoma, but I don't think any of the conferences will take a Big 12 team outside those two except as a secondary team to one of those two.

4x16 works OK in theory, but I really think it's more of a message board thing to keep realignment talks going than anything any of the leaders care about. That said, if you ever did get something like it (which might well still include a 12 team conference and maybe 18/20 team conference), I think the way too it would happen is like this:

1. Big Ten, SEC, and/or PAC-12 take several key members of the ACC and Big 12.
2. Stronger teams left from the Big 12/ACC merge.

(05-25-2014 08:18 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  At the end of the day, I just don't see the conferences coordinating with each other. While there has been reasons for expansion for all of them, I think every move has been independent of each other. The PAC-10 looked at becoming the PAC-16 and settled on the PAC-12 because they felt the schools added brought money and made the conference better. When Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were rejected, it was because the leaders felt money was good already and they didn't want to upset what was a pretty good balance even for a bit more money and good name programs. The Big Ten took a big national name and a few east coast schools they thought they needed to keep a good presence on the east coast. The ACC tried to expand in the northeast. The SEC went after the Texas market/recruiting and added Missouri as another good state.

My point with all of this is that the conferences have never worked together on this and have always done what they think is in their best interest. Not one of them is going to expand with teams they don't think add to their conference and none of them have the goal of 4x16 conferences, thus destroying the Big 12/ACC. Any of them would take Texas in a heartbeat and under the right circumstances, many would take Oklahoma, but I don't think any of the conferences will take a Big 12 team outside those two except as a secondary team to one of those two.

4x16 works OK in theory, but I really think it's more of a message board thing to keep realignment talks going than anything any of the leaders care about. That said, if you ever did get something like it (which might well still include a 12 team conference and maybe 18/20 team conference), I think the way too it would happen is like this:

1. Big Ten, SEC, and/or PAC-12 take several key members of the ACC and Big 12.
2. Stronger teams left from the Big 12/ACC merge.

I see your point, but there are other selfish reasons for the 4 remaining conferences to eliminate the 5th. For the Big 10 and SEC the best motivations would be either a couple of decent content brands or additional markets. For the ACC it would be to garner football gravitas. For the PAC it would be the acquisition of 4 slots in a time zone in which they haven't been able to successfully sell product before. And.........for all four the elimination of the 5th slice of the playoff pie would amount to a little over 1.4 million per school for the additions of 2 more each for the ACC, SEC, and Big 10, and for the PAC but they would be now dividing their money among 16 instead of 12.

The only prerequisite necessary to make it happen would be for the networks involved to be willing to pay the base revenue for the additional schools based upon the income distributions for the respective conference contracts. Since the PAC, Big 12, and ACC are similar in pay already that shouldn't be an issue and since the SEC and Big 10 get more only 4 teams would get a significant bump and if two of them are Oklahoma and Kansas it shouldn't be hard to acquire.

In such a scenario even the moving schools get a bump for the elimination. It works especially well if the conference divided is the Big 12 since they only have 10 schools and only 9 of them need be taken if N.D. goes all in for the ACC.

When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

(05-26-2014 01:25 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

I agree about the other boards by the way. The Hairy Bovine is a good read because I think some of those guys are reasonable and the others are eating some kind of laced brownies before they post. So between the rational and the loons it's fairly entertaining. The Turf Burglars site where you post sometimes has too many guys like THE and Notre Dame Joe who are just haters with no particular attachment to the Big 12. Then they have Oklahoma lover's and Big 12 haters which is an odd mix. I check the site but have no desire to post there because a few of the kooks never back up their stuff and cite the most asinine reasoning I find anywhere outside of a WVU board (which is a cut above most G5 boards and right now our own CS&CR board).

Now onto your issue. I'm not sure that the Sooners have a little brother issue. The Cowboys are top 30 in revenue production and their average attendance while not top notch isn't terrible either. Their issue is that the Big 10 is out because of Academics and they could get in somewhere if the stupid legislature in Oklahoma wasn't pushing for them to move with OU. The problem with the Cowboys is that no conference wants two schools from one small market. The issue at Kansas State is how long will a once retired coach (and all around great guy) still be with the Wildcats after a move? They stunk it up before Snyder and they stunk it up after he retired the first time, and they'll stink it up again when he retires for good, and everyone knows it. Iowa State is everyone's outlier except the Big 10 but it is a great school with good fans. T.C.U. doesn't belong in the P5. Texas Tech is a better fit with the PAC should the Big 12 go but only because of geography. W.V.U. should have never been asked to be part of a conference where the closest school is over 900 miles away.

So, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas will be safe. Baylor and Oklahoma State and to a lesser extent Texas Tech should be safe, but aren't totally. And the rest have some serious issues if the PAC doesn't truly want 4 central time zone slots.

Baylor:
PAC chances: Like B.Y.U. the California schools would say no.

Big 10 chances: Don't fit the profile in any way.

SEC chances: Perhaps in the right circumstances. Academics are a plus, athletics are solid enough, fan base is considered too small, except for
Vanderbilt it doesn't fit the profile, but there are more Baptists in the Southeast than about anywhere else.

ACC chances: With Texas they would be solid.

Oklahoma State:
PAC chances: In the right grouping decent.

Big 10 chances: None

SEC chances: Partnered with the right school decent.

ACC chances: Only partnered with the right school.

Texas Tech:
PAC chances: Solid if partnered with the right school. Better than most think if not.

SEC chances: Possible if partnered in the right grouping.

Big 10 chances: None

ACC chances: Very Slim even if partnered with Texas (Distance).

Iowa State: Only the Big 10, PAC in a central time zone grouping, or in an extreme compromise in the SEC.

Kansas State: Only in a PAC central time zone grouping, or in the SEC if partnered with Oklahoma.

West Virginia: Iffy to the ACC. Extremely slim to the SEC where I only see it as being remotely possible at 20 to 24 teams. None in the Big 10 or PAC.

T.C.U.: Only in the right PAC or ACC grouping.

And that's about how I see it.

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would be welcomed to any of the remaining P4 conferences.

(05-26-2014 09:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:25 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

I agree about the other boards by the way. The Hairy Bovine is a good read because I think some of those guys are reasonable and the others are eating some kind of laced brownies before they post. So between the rational and the loons it's fairly entertaining. The Turf Burglars site where you post sometimes has too many guys like THE and Notre Dame Joe who are just haters with no particular attachment to the Big 12. Then they have Oklahoma lover's and Big 12 haters which is an odd mix. I check the site but have no desire to post there because a few of the kooks never back up their stuff and cite the most asinine reasoning I find anywhere outside of a WVU board (which is a cut above most G5 boards and right now our own CS&CR board).

Now onto your issue. I'm not sure that the Sooners have a little brother issue. The Cowboys are top 30 in revenue production and their average attendance while not top notch isn't terrible either. Their issue is that the Big 10 is out because of Academics and they could get in somewhere if the stupid legislature in Oklahoma wasn't pushing for them to move with OU. The problem with the Cowboys is that no conference wants two schools from one small market. The issue at Kansas State is how long will a once retired coach (and all around great guy) still be with the Wildcats after a move? They stunk it up before Snyder and they stunk it up after he retired the first time, and they'll stink it up again when he retires for good, and everyone knows it. Iowa State is everyone's outlier except the Big 10 but it is a great school with good fans. T.C.U. doesn't belong in the P5. Texas Tech is a better fit with the PAC should the Big 12 go but only because of geography. W.V.U. should have never been asked to be part of a conference where the closest school is over 900 miles away.

So, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas will be safe. Baylor and Oklahoma State and to a lesser extent Texas Tech should be safe, but aren't totally. And the rest have some serious issues if the PAC doesn't truly want 4 central time zone slots.

Baylor:
PAC chances: Like B.Y.U. the California schools would say no.

Big 10 chances: Don't fit the profile in any way.

SEC chances: Perhaps in the right circumstances. Academics are a plus, athletics are solid enough, fan base is considered too small, except for
Vanderbilt it doesn't fit the profile, but there are more Baptists in the Southeast than about anywhere else.

ACC chances: With Texas they would be solid.

Oklahoma State:
PAC chances: In the right grouping decent.

Big 10 chances: None

SEC chances: Partnered with the right school decent.

ACC chances: Only partnered with the right school.

Texas Tech:
PAC chances: Solid if partnered with the right school. Better than most think if not.

SEC chances: Possible if partnered in the right grouping.

Big 10 chances: None

ACC chances: Very Slim even if partnered with Texas (Distance).

Iowa State: Only the Big 10, PAC in a central time zone grouping, or in an extreme compromise in the SEC.

Kansas State: Only in a PAC central time zone grouping, or in the SEC if partnered with Oklahoma.

West Virginia: Iffy to the ACC. Extremely slim to the SEC where I only see it as being remotely possible at 20 to 24 teams. None in the Big 10 or PAC.

T.C.U.: Only in the right PAC or ACC grouping.

And that's about how I see it.

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would be welcomed to any of the remaining P4 conferences.

Like your scenario here Jr. My only issue might be Texas Tech to the SEC. That would be a consideration if Texas wanted to join the SEC I guess, but OU/OSU brings much less baggage. Markets of Stillwater and Lubbock seem to be a wash.

(05-26-2014 09:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:25 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

I agree about the other boards by the way. The Hairy Bovine is a good read because I think some of those guys are reasonable and the others are eating some kind of laced brownies before they post. So between the rational and the loons it's fairly entertaining. The Turf Burglars site where you post sometimes has too many guys like THE and Notre Dame Joe who are just haters with no particular attachment to the Big 12. Then they have Oklahoma lover's and Big 12 haters which is an odd mix. I check the site but have no desire to post there because a few of the kooks never back up their stuff and cite the most asinine reasoning I find anywhere outside of a WVU board (which is a cut above most G5 boards and right now our own CS&CR board).

Now onto your issue. I'm not sure that the Sooners have a little brother issue. The Cowboys are top 30 in revenue production and their average attendance while not top notch isn't terrible either. Their issue is that the Big 10 is out because of Academics and they could get in somewhere if the stupid legislature in Oklahoma wasn't pushing for them to move with OU. The problem with the Cowboys is that no conference wants two schools from one small market. The issue at Kansas State is how long will a once retired coach (and all around great guy) still be with the Wildcats after a move? They stunk it up before Snyder and they stunk it up after he retired the first time, and they'll stink it up again when he retires for good, and everyone knows it. Iowa State is everyone's outlier except the Big 10 but it is a great school with good fans. T.C.U. doesn't belong in the P5. Texas Tech is a better fit with the PAC should the Big 12 go but only because of geography. W.V.U. should have never been asked to be part of a conference where the closest school is over 900 miles away.

So, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas will be safe. Baylor and Oklahoma State and to a lesser extent Texas Tech should be safe, but aren't totally. And the rest have some serious issues if the PAC doesn't truly want 4 central time zone slots.

Baylor:
PAC chances: Like B.Y.U. the California schools would say no.

Big 10 chances: Don't fit the profile in any way.

SEC chances: Perhaps in the right circumstances. Academics are a plus, athletics are solid enough, fan base is considered too small, except for
Vanderbilt it doesn't fit the profile, but there are more Baptists in the Southeast than about anywhere else.

ACC chances: With Texas they would be solid.

Oklahoma State:
PAC chances: In the right grouping decent.

Big 10 chances: None

SEC chances: Partnered with the right school decent.

ACC chances: Only partnered with the right school.

Texas Tech:
PAC chances: Solid if partnered with the right school. Better than most think if not.

SEC chances: Possible if partnered in the right grouping.

Big 10 chances: None

ACC chances: Very Slim even if partnered with Texas (Distance).

Iowa State: Only the Big 10, PAC in a central time zone grouping, or in an extreme compromise in the SEC.

Kansas State: Only in a PAC central time zone grouping, or in the SEC if partnered with Oklahoma.

West Virginia: Iffy to the ACC. Extremely slim to the SEC where I only see it as being remotely possible at 20 to 24 teams. None in the Big 10 or PAC.

T.C.U.: Only in the right PAC or ACC grouping.

And that's about how I see it.

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would be welcomed to any of the remaining P4 conferences.

Landthieves was the first board I started following for realignment back when the B12 looked like it might be a dead in 2010. I like seeing which way the wind blows there because I think OU is least pleased with the B12 and most likely to make waves. I like seeing which way OU fans are leaning (it is split pretty even among the PAC/B1G/SEC). The SEC gets some grief there, but mostly because a couple SEC posters are not liked much. I try to stay out of the mud slinging.

Shaggybevo is entertaining and sometimes there are some good posts in the realignment thread. Have to take posters with a grain of salt.

KU fans are not really crazy into realignment compared to OU and UT fans. The KU AD is tight lipped (unlike UT and OU's ADs) so nothing gets leaked that gets KU fans riled up. Realignment discussion is only a sporadic discussion on KU boards and usually only when KU to X rumors are happening.

The scout WVU B12 board is where the Dude and MHVer3 rumormongers got started. Used to be some decent realignment discussion there because of it, but now it is mostly garbage. Pretty much the only B12 boards where realignment discussion is always on tap are those 3 boards.

(05-26-2014 09:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:25 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

I agree about the other boards by the way. The Hairy Bovine is a good read because I think some of those guys are reasonable and the others are eating some kind of laced brownies before they post. So between the rational and the loons it's fairly entertaining. The Turf Burglars site where you post sometimes has too many guys like THE and Notre Dame Joe who are just haters with no particular attachment to the Big 12. Then they have Oklahoma lover's and Big 12 haters which is an odd mix. I check the site but have no desire to post there because a few of the kooks never back up their stuff and cite the most asinine reasoning I find anywhere outside of a WVU board (which is a cut above most G5 boards and right now our own CS&CR board).

Now onto your issue. I'm not sure that the Sooners have a little brother issue. The Cowboys are top 30 in revenue production and their average attendance while not top notch isn't terrible either. Their issue is that the Big 10 is out because of Academics and they could get in somewhere if the stupid legislature in Oklahoma wasn't pushing for them to move with OU. The problem with the Cowboys is that no conference wants two schools from one small market. The issue at Kansas State is how long will a once retired coach (and all around great guy) still be with the Wildcats after a move? They stunk it up before Snyder and they stunk it up after he retired the first time, and they'll stink it up again when he retires for good, and everyone knows it. Iowa State is everyone's outlier except the Big 10 but it is a great school with good fans. T.C.U. doesn't belong in the P5. Texas Tech is a better fit with the PAC should the Big 12 go but only because of geography. W.V.U. should have never been asked to be part of a conference where the closest school is over 900 miles away.

So, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas will be safe. Baylor and Oklahoma State and to a lesser extent Texas Tech should be safe, but aren't totally. And the rest have some serious issues if the PAC doesn't truly want 4 central time zone slots.

Baylor:
PAC chances: Like B.Y.U. the California schools would say no.

Big 10 chances: Don't fit the profile in any way.

SEC chances: Perhaps in the right circumstances. Academics are a plus, athletics are solid enough, fan base is considered too small, except for
Vanderbilt it doesn't fit the profile, but there are more Baptists in the Southeast than about anywhere else.

ACC chances: With Texas they would be solid.

Oklahoma State:
PAC chances: In the right grouping decent.

Big 10 chances: None

SEC chances: Partnered with the right school decent.

ACC chances: Only partnered with the right school.

Texas Tech:
PAC chances: Solid if partnered with the right school. Better than most think if not.

SEC chances: Possible if partnered in the right grouping.

Big 10 chances: None

ACC chances: Very Slim even if partnered with Texas (Distance).

Iowa State: Only the Big 10, PAC in a central time zone grouping, or in an extreme compromise in the SEC.

Kansas State: Only in a PAC central time zone grouping, or in the SEC if partnered with Oklahoma.

West Virginia: Iffy to the ACC. Extremely slim to the SEC where I only see it as being remotely possible at 20 to 24 teams. None in the Big 10 or PAC.

T.C.U.: Only in the right PAC or ACC grouping.

And that's about how I see it.

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would be welcomed to any of the remaining P4 conferences.

i think TCU will get the baylor treatment from the cali schools. having a religious name will do them in.

(05-27-2014 12:23 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 09:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:25 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

I agree about the other boards by the way. The Hairy Bovine is a good read because I think some of those guys are reasonable and the others are eating some kind of laced brownies before they post. So between the rational and the loons it's fairly entertaining. The Turf Burglars site where you post sometimes has too many guys like THE and Notre Dame Joe who are just haters with no particular attachment to the Big 12. Then they have Oklahoma lover's and Big 12 haters which is an odd mix. I check the site but have no desire to post there because a few of the kooks never back up their stuff and cite the most asinine reasoning I find anywhere outside of a WVU board (which is a cut above most G5 boards and right now our own CS&CR board).

Now onto your issue. I'm not sure that the Sooners have a little brother issue. The Cowboys are top 30 in revenue production and their average attendance while not top notch isn't terrible either. Their issue is that the Big 10 is out because of Academics and they could get in somewhere if the stupid legislature in Oklahoma wasn't pushing for them to move with OU. The problem with the Cowboys is that no conference wants two schools from one small market. The issue at Kansas State is how long will a once retired coach (and all around great guy) still be with the Wildcats after a move? They stunk it up before Snyder and they stunk it up after he retired the first time, and they'll stink it up again when he retires for good, and everyone knows it. Iowa State is everyone's outlier except the Big 10 but it is a great school with good fans. T.C.U. doesn't belong in the P5. Texas Tech is a better fit with the PAC should the Big 12 go but only because of geography. W.V.U. should have never been asked to be part of a conference where the closest school is over 900 miles away.

So, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas will be safe. Baylor and Oklahoma State and to a lesser extent Texas Tech should be safe, but aren't totally. And the rest have some serious issues if the PAC doesn't truly want 4 central time zone slots.

Baylor:
PAC chances: Like B.Y.U. the California schools would say no.

Big 10 chances: Don't fit the profile in any way.

SEC chances: Perhaps in the right circumstances. Academics are a plus, athletics are solid enough, fan base is considered too small, except for
Vanderbilt it doesn't fit the profile, but there are more Baptists in the Southeast than about anywhere else.

ACC chances: With Texas they would be solid.

Oklahoma State:
PAC chances: In the right grouping decent.

Big 10 chances: None

SEC chances: Partnered with the right school decent.

ACC chances: Only partnered with the right school.

Texas Tech:
PAC chances: Solid if partnered with the right school. Better than most think if not.

SEC chances: Possible if partnered in the right grouping.

Big 10 chances: None

ACC chances: Very Slim even if partnered with Texas (Distance).

Iowa State: Only the Big 10, PAC in a central time zone grouping, or in an extreme compromise in the SEC.

Kansas State: Only in a PAC central time zone grouping, or in the SEC if partnered with Oklahoma.

West Virginia: Iffy to the ACC. Extremely slim to the SEC where I only see it as being remotely possible at 20 to 24 teams. None in the Big 10 or PAC.

T.C.U.: Only in the right PAC or ACC grouping.

And that's about how I see it.

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would be welcomed to any of the remaining P4 conferences.

Landthieves was the first board I started following for realignment back when the B12 looked like it might be a dead in 2010. I like seeing which way the wind blows there because I think OU is least pleased with the B12 and most likely to make waves. I like seeing which way OU fans are leaning (it is split pretty even among the PAC/B1G/SEC). The SEC gets some grief there, but mostly because a couple SEC posters are not liked much. I try to stay out of the mud slinging.

Shaggybevo is entertaining and sometimes there are some good posts in the realignment thread. Have to take posters with a grain of salt.

KU fans are not really crazy into realignment compared to OU and UT fans. The KU AD is tight lipped (unlike UT and OU's ADs) so nothing gets leaked that gets KU fans riled up. Realignment discussion is only a sporadic discussion on KU boards and usually only when KU to X rumors are happening.

The scout WVU B12 board is where the Dude and MHVer3 rumormongers got started. Used to be some decent realignment discussion there because of it, but now it is mostly garbage. Pretty much the only B12 boards where realignment discussion is always on tap are those 3 boards.

Well the Mod just had to close yet another Big XII slug fest on the realignment board. To your point regarding Kansas and their strategy to deal with this, tight lipped is the way to go. They saw the Missouri Governor make himself look stupid in 2010.

(05-27-2014 12:29 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 09:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 01:25 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:19 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  When I try to discuss realignment with many of the Big XII posters on the realignment board, it seems like all I get is smart *ssed comments and denial of their problems. I commented that OU and KU would be nice additions to the SEC West, and guess what? They are like the Captain on the Titanic, standing on the deck proclaiming there is nothing to worry about. They should be. The only guarantees for a landing spot is OU, KU, and Texas, the way I see it. If the Big XII collapses some day, the other conferences may just tell Texas, OU, etc. to come by themselves or find another conference. All leverage for them will be gone. Most of the "Techs" and "States" will be homeless... I have a lot of Kansas friends here and I know they will be in the SEC or the B1G someday. The rest of them can just take a hike. I am so glad the SEC led us out of that mess.

Sorry about that. B12 fans (except UT, OU and KU fans who mostly are pretty confident of their place regardless of what happens to the B12) are becoming as bad as ACC fans. Many know they might struggle to find a power conference home if the B12 dissolves so they defend it vehemently. Today I saw a discussion about how KU is worthless on a B12 conference board from little brother schools who did not like what Texas fans said about the value of schools in the B12 being Texas >> OU >>> KU >>>>>>> everyone else (In a thread criticizing UT fans for thinking the B12 might not be a good home for them long term). I see some real stupidity on B12 boards sometimes these days.

Some people can't have any kind of rational discussion about realignment unless it is something they want to hear. It's okay to disagree, just discuss it rationally and civilly. That is why I love this board. People disagree here plenty, but it usually remains civil and people usually try to back up their views right or wrong rather than flaming and name calling. My favorite forum on the net for these discussions right now. Avoid the main realignment board here mostly because of all the riff raff who junk up the threads.

MU was smart. I hate that four schools left the B12, which was great and really the only challenger the SEC had year in and year out in FB for supremacy. But the B12 is dysfunctional in so many ways that may never get worked out. Can't blame any of the four for heading to more stable situations even if it left KU in a worse situation. I wish KU, OU and Texas did not have little sister problems so they could freely move to the best situation for themselves. All the B12 flagships without this problem are now in new conferences. Coincidence? Hardly.

I agree about the other boards by the way. The Hairy Bovine is a good read because I think some of those guys are reasonable and the others are eating some kind of laced brownies before they post. So between the rational and the loons it's fairly entertaining. The Turf Burglars site where you post sometimes has too many guys like THE and Notre Dame Joe who are just haters with no particular attachment to the Big 12. Then they have Oklahoma lover's and Big 12 haters which is an odd mix. I check the site but have no desire to post there because a few of the kooks never back up their stuff and cite the most asinine reasoning I find anywhere outside of a WVU board (which is a cut above most G5 boards and right now our own CS&CR board).

Now onto your issue. I'm not sure that the Sooners have a little brother issue. The Cowboys are top 30 in revenue production and their average attendance while not top notch isn't terrible either. Their issue is that the Big 10 is out because of Academics and they could get in somewhere if the stupid legislature in Oklahoma wasn't pushing for them to move with OU. The problem with the Cowboys is that no conference wants two schools from one small market. The issue at Kansas State is how long will a once retired coach (and all around great guy) still be with the Wildcats after a move? They stunk it up before Snyder and they stunk it up after he retired the first time, and they'll stink it up again when he retires for good, and everyone knows it. Iowa State is everyone's outlier except the Big 10 but it is a great school with good fans. T.C.U. doesn't belong in the P5. Texas Tech is a better fit with the PAC should the Big 12 go but only because of geography. W.V.U. should have never been asked to be part of a conference where the closest school is over 900 miles away.

So, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas will be safe. Baylor and Oklahoma State and to a lesser extent Texas Tech should be safe, but aren't totally. And the rest have some serious issues if the PAC doesn't truly want 4 central time zone slots.

Baylor:
PAC chances: Like B.Y.U. the California schools would say no.

Big 10 chances: Don't fit the profile in any way.

SEC chances: Perhaps in the right circumstances. Academics are a plus, athletics are solid enough, fan base is considered too small, except for
Vanderbilt it doesn't fit the profile, but there are more Baptists in the Southeast than about anywhere else.

ACC chances: With Texas they would be solid.

Oklahoma State:
PAC chances: In the right grouping decent.

Big 10 chances: None

SEC chances: Partnered with the right school decent.

ACC chances: Only partnered with the right school.

Texas Tech:
PAC chances: Solid if partnered with the right school. Better than most think if not.

SEC chances: Possible if partnered in the right grouping.

Big 10 chances: None

ACC chances: Very Slim even if partnered with Texas (Distance).

Iowa State: Only the Big 10, PAC in a central time zone grouping, or in an extreme compromise in the SEC.

Kansas State: Only in a PAC central time zone grouping, or in the SEC if partnered with Oklahoma.

West Virginia: Iffy to the ACC. Extremely slim to the SEC where I only see it as being remotely possible at 20 to 24 teams. None in the Big 10 or PAC.

T.C.U.: Only in the right PAC or ACC grouping.

And that's about how I see it.

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would be welcomed to any of the remaining P4 conferences.

i think TCU will get the baylor treatment from the cali schools. having a religious name will do them in.

John the official name of the school is now just the initials. They have dropped Texas Christian University as their official moniker. They are also virtually totally secular as far as the governance of the school goes. They have a seminary, but it is merely one school within the college. Even the PAC can make the distinction between T.C.U. and Brigham Young where the faith dictates most of the decisions of the school, or Baylor, where the dichotomy of Brittany Griner's gender preference had to be covered up to be compliant.