(03-03-2015 07:35 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 07:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  No doubt the networks are the big driver on this. I think the networks give the conferences the schools they are willing to pay for and the conferences for the most part work on landing the schools they want on that list. BC's AD basically said ESPN told the ACC who to take from the Big East. The B12 admitted the networks pushed TCU and WVU as the adds they would pay for. That is why the PAC is really screwed. They have no network in their corner. I think if they seriously want to get more than the leftovers of expansion they need to swing ESPN or FOX a share of their network.

Hopefully, whatever happens, all the B12 schools find homes. The B12 is probably more valuable parted out to the other conferences than it currently is whole.

I agree with you that the networks provide the menu and the conferences select the entrees. One of the bigger questions I have with this rumor is whether 16 really is the magic number, or not? Just stop and think for a moment about the issues solved here by going to 18.

1. Oklahoma could be accommodated.
2. Vanderbilt stays put.
3. Regions become more of the mini conference they are today.
4. Balance between stronger and weaker regions are accounted for by the 4th slot for a conference playoff going to the best overall school that doesn't win one of the three divisions. Which keeps more of the 18 fan bases energized later into the season than a 4 division model.

Let the SEC go for Texas and Kansas, but let them also pick up an Oklahoma school, and a school of Texas's choice. Let the ACC land Notre Dame, complete their footprint with West Virginia, but also be free to choose either or both of Cincinnati and Connecticut. The PAC could still take Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech to go with B.Y.U., or Rice. If the Sooners should choose to opt with Texas for the SEC in that scenario then Oklahoma State would be available to the PAC as well. But for now let's assume that FOX insists upon the Sooners going to the Big 10. The result would be better divisions for the SEC and ACC, the top 68 schools within more than a reasonable doubt being included, and a possible set up like this:

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Atlantic: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

(With 3 divisions of 6 you can play 5 divisional games, 2 rotating games from each of the other two divisions, and 3 out of conference P5 games which could include in conference rivals as a non conference game to solve a few residual situations created by the rotation.)

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State Rutgers

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., Utah
Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Whether 16 or 18 is the final number, getting it done would be a good thing for the game. I just think 18 cleans up the landscape in a more politically feasible way for the ACC and SEC. 16 makes for a stronger tighter conference, but 18 makes for better divisions and the at large conference playoff bid makes for better races near season's end. These 68 schools truly help to create a more definitive separation between the G5 and what would be a reasonably solid P4. Thoughts?

Most realignment scenarios I see have a PAC problem. We think the PAC will take leftovers or lower quality teams in order to keep up with the Jones of the SEC/Big 10. Perhaps more likely is they perform a ninja Swofford move and grab someone like Kansas first (I bet Kansas would prefer the PAC to the SEC if the Big 10 isn't calling). Texas Tech and TCU probably aren't worth it to the PAC without Texas.

The same thing for Iowa State to the Big 10. Why, except as an add on to grab a bigger school or to even out the league? In fact Kansas/Iowa St would fit better in the PAC AAU school league with new markets rather than the SEC/ Big 10, if the PAC can't get Texas.

What this means for the SEC is that we are most likely to wind up with Ok St/WVU/Baylor type schools rather than the big wigs of Kansas/Texas.

The rumor started from a poster on the Orangebloods and Shaggybevo Texas sites. He claimed to have a business friend who had strong ties to ESPN who said they were pushing the Texas and Kansas to the SEC rumor. It was predicated upon ESPN's interest and heavy investment in Texas's LHN and in their T3 program with Kansas. Reportedly ESPN wants the pair in one of their conferences and the SEC has the most to offer geographically and with former members of the SWC and Big 12. You do know that it was ESPN that strongly suggested Missouri? Texas has been an SEC target in the past (1991 most recently) but Kansas? The issue here is that the Big 10 is under FOX influence and the PAC is independent of network affiliation as they lease their product to both FOX and ESPN who have no stake in it. That leaves the ACC and the SEC who are mostly or totally ESPN controlled. That arrangement led to Mizzou so why wouldn't it possibly lead to Kansas? If it were left up to me we would have snagged F.S.U. and Clemson and called it a day. But that would devalue ESPN's investment in the ACC and might well have led to its dissolution. Plus they are needed now as ESPN woos Notre Dame. North Carolina and Virginia/VaTech would have been okay, but the Heels and Hoos are needed for lacrosse attraction to the Irish. VaTech and N.C. State would have done, but U.N.C. doesn't want Texas and OU, and Kansas would be on an island. So in that regard ESPN's desire to plant those properties in the SEC carries the weight of legitimacy. OU is more of a FOX property so I assume that is why they aren't part of the rumor. It's a slow time but rumors are heating up. It doesn't mean much, but it gives us something to discuss.

In my informal and oh! so not scientific research in the last few days, if the rumor is true, the Kansas administration will have a bigger job dealing with and convincing their fan base than Maryland did.

(03-03-2015 09:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  In my informal and oh! so not scientific research in the last few days, if the rumor is true, the Kansas administration will have a bigger job dealing with and convincing their fan base than Maryland did.

And Slive or replacement, will have to do a lot of balloon floating and sugar coating to get the average SEC fan to drink the Koolade that ESPN would be putting out there. However the academicians would buy it and try to sell it too. I can see the value both strategically and for building up on a weakness of the SEC. But if Oklahoma is hanging out there trying to decide whether or not to go to the Big 10 then it will be a very hard sell to our guys. Texas would be welcomed by all but Aggie, but that's understandable. But in the end if having them profits A&M as well that might not be as tough as it first appears. But truly the term "Jayhawk" doesn't fit comfortably in any phrase uttered with a drawl.

One of the Jayhawk sites I visited was open to the idea. Still I think you are right. But if they were to move with Texas and renew rivalry with Missouri and develop Arkansas it would be doable, not probable, or even popular, but doable.

(03-03-2015 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 07:35 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 07:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  No doubt the networks are the big driver on this. I think the networks give the conferences the schools they are willing to pay for and the conferences for the most part work on landing the schools they want on that list. BC's AD basically said ESPN told the ACC who to take from the Big East. The B12 admitted the networks pushed TCU and WVU as the adds they would pay for. That is why the PAC is really screwed. They have no network in their corner. I think if they seriously want to get more than the leftovers of expansion they need to swing ESPN or FOX a share of their network.

Hopefully, whatever happens, all the B12 schools find homes. The B12 is probably more valuable parted out to the other conferences than it currently is whole.

I agree with you that the networks provide the menu and the conferences select the entrees. One of the bigger questions I have with this rumor is whether 16 really is the magic number, or not? Just stop and think for a moment about the issues solved here by going to 18.

1. Oklahoma could be accommodated.
2. Vanderbilt stays put.
3. Regions become more of the mini conference they are today.
4. Balance between stronger and weaker regions are accounted for by the 4th slot for a conference playoff going to the best overall school that doesn't win one of the three divisions. Which keeps more of the 18 fan bases energized later into the season than a 4 division model.

Let the SEC go for Texas and Kansas, but let them also pick up an Oklahoma school, and a school of Texas's choice. Let the ACC land Notre Dame, complete their footprint with West Virginia, but also be free to choose either or both of Cincinnati and Connecticut. The PAC could still take Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech to go with B.Y.U., or Rice. If the Sooners should choose to opt with Texas for the SEC in that scenario then Oklahoma State would be available to the PAC as well. But for now let's assume that FOX insists upon the Sooners going to the Big 10. The result would be better divisions for the SEC and ACC, the top 68 schools within more than a reasonable doubt being included, and a possible set up like this:

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Atlantic: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

(With 3 divisions of 6 you can play 5 divisional games, 2 rotating games from each of the other two divisions, and 3 out of conference P5 games which could include in conference rivals as a non conference game to solve a few residual situations created by the rotation.)

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State Rutgers

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., Utah
Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Whether 16 or 18 is the final number, getting it done would be a good thing for the game. I just think 18 cleans up the landscape in a more politically feasible way for the ACC and SEC. 16 makes for a stronger tighter conference, but 18 makes for better divisions and the at large conference playoff bid makes for better races near season's end. These 68 schools truly help to create a more definitive separation between the G5 and what would be a reasonably solid P4. Thoughts?

Most realignment scenarios I see have a PAC problem. We think the PAC will take leftovers or lower quality teams in order to keep up with the Jones of the SEC/Big 10. Perhaps more likely is they perform a ninja Swofford move and grab someone like Kansas first (I bet Kansas would prefer the PAC to the SEC if the Big 10 isn't calling). Texas Tech and TCU probably aren't worth it to the PAC without Texas.

The same thing for Iowa State to the Big 10. Why, except as an add on to grab a bigger school or to even out the league? In fact Kansas/Iowa St would fit better in the PAC AAU school league with new markets rather than the SEC/ Big 10, if the PAC can't get Texas.

What this means for the SEC is that we are most likely to wind up with Ok St/WVU/Baylor type schools rather than the big wigs of Kansas/Texas.

The rumor started from a poster on the Orangebloods and Shaggybevo Texas sites. He claimed to have a business friend who had strong ties to ESPN who said they were pushing the Texas and Kansas to the SEC rumor. It was predicated upon ESPN's interest and heavy investment in Texas's LHN and in their T3 program with Kansas. Reportedly ESPN wants the pair in one of their conferences and the SEC has the most to offer geographically and with former members of the SWC and Big 12. You do know that it was ESPN that strongly suggested Missouri? Texas has been an SEC target in the past (1991 most recently) but Kansas? The issue here is that the Big 10 is under FOX influence and the PAC is independent of network affiliation as they lease their product to both FOX and ESPN who have no stake in it. That leaves the ACC and the SEC who are mostly or totally ESPN controlled. That arrangement led to Mizzou so why wouldn't it possibly lead to Kansas? If it were left up to me we would have snagged F.S.U. and Clemson and called it a day. But that would devalue ESPN's investment in the ACC and might well have led to its dissolution. Plus they are needed now as ESPN woos Notre Dame. North Carolina and Virginia/VaTech would have been okay, but the Heels and Hoos are needed for lacrosse attraction to the Irish. VaTech and N.C. State would have done, but U.N.C. doesn't want Texas and OU, and Kansas would be on an island. So in that regard ESPN's desire to plant those properties in the SEC carries the weight of legitimacy. OU is more of a FOX property so I assume that is why they aren't part of the rumor. It's a slow time but rumors are heating up. It doesn't mean much, but it gives us something to discuss.

Fair enough. As a Fox vs. ESPN game this scenario makes more sense, however I am still not convinced Big 10 settles with ISU. Bigger fish.

(03-03-2015 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 07:35 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 07:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  No doubt the networks are the big driver on this. I think the networks give the conferences the schools they are willing to pay for and the conferences for the most part work on landing the schools they want on that list. BC's AD basically said ESPN told the ACC who to take from the Big East. The B12 admitted the networks pushed TCU and WVU as the adds they would pay for. That is why the PAC is really screwed. They have no network in their corner. I think if they seriously want to get more than the leftovers of expansion they need to swing ESPN or FOX a share of their network.

Hopefully, whatever happens, all the B12 schools find homes. The B12 is probably more valuable parted out to the other conferences than it currently is whole.

I agree with you that the networks provide the menu and the conferences select the entrees. One of the bigger questions I have with this rumor is whether 16 really is the magic number, or not? Just stop and think for a moment about the issues solved here by going to 18.

1. Oklahoma could be accommodated.
2. Vanderbilt stays put.
3. Regions become more of the mini conference they are today.
4. Balance between stronger and weaker regions are accounted for by the 4th slot for a conference playoff going to the best overall school that doesn't win one of the three divisions. Which keeps more of the 18 fan bases energized later into the season than a 4 division model.

Let the SEC go for Texas and Kansas, but let them also pick up an Oklahoma school, and a school of Texas's choice. Let the ACC land Notre Dame, complete their footprint with West Virginia, but also be free to choose either or both of Cincinnati and Connecticut. The PAC could still take Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech to go with B.Y.U., or Rice. If the Sooners should choose to opt with Texas for the SEC in that scenario then Oklahoma State would be available to the PAC as well. But for now let's assume that FOX insists upon the Sooners going to the Big 10. The result would be better divisions for the SEC and ACC, the top 68 schools within more than a reasonable doubt being included, and a possible set up like this:

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Atlantic: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

(With 3 divisions of 6 you can play 5 divisional games, 2 rotating games from each of the other two divisions, and 3 out of conference P5 games which could include in conference rivals as a non conference game to solve a few residual situations created by the rotation.)

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State Rutgers

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., Utah
Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Whether 16 or 18 is the final number, getting it done would be a good thing for the game. I just think 18 cleans up the landscape in a more politically feasible way for the ACC and SEC. 16 makes for a stronger tighter conference, but 18 makes for better divisions and the at large conference playoff bid makes for better races near season's end. These 68 schools truly help to create a more definitive separation between the G5 and what would be a reasonably solid P4. Thoughts?

Most realignment scenarios I see have a PAC problem. We think the PAC will take leftovers or lower quality teams in order to keep up with the Jones of the SEC/Big 10. Perhaps more likely is they perform a ninja Swofford move and grab someone like Kansas first (I bet Kansas would prefer the PAC to the SEC if the Big 10 isn't calling). Texas Tech and TCU probably aren't worth it to the PAC without Texas.

The same thing for Iowa State to the Big 10. Why, except as an add on to grab a bigger school or to even out the league? In fact Kansas/Iowa St would fit better in the PAC AAU school league with new markets rather than the SEC/ Big 10, if the PAC can't get Texas.

What this means for the SEC is that we are most likely to wind up with Ok St/WVU/Baylor type schools rather than the big wigs of Kansas/Texas.

The rumor started from a poster on the Orangebloods and Shaggybevo Texas sites. He claimed to have a business friend who had strong ties to ESPN who said they were pushing the Texas and Kansas to the SEC rumor. It was predicated upon ESPN's interest and heavy investment in Texas's LHN and in their T3 program with Kansas. Reportedly ESPN wants the pair in one of their conferences and the SEC has the most to offer geographically and with former members of the SWC and Big 12. You do know that it was ESPN that strongly suggested Missouri? Texas has been an SEC target in the past (1991 most recently) but Kansas? The issue here is that the Big 10 is under FOX influence and the PAC is independent of network affiliation as they lease their product to both FOX and ESPN who have no stake in it. That leaves the ACC and the SEC who are mostly or totally ESPN controlled. That arrangement led to Mizzou so why wouldn't it possibly lead to Kansas? If it were left up to me we would have snagged F.S.U. and Clemson and called it a day. But that would devalue ESPN's investment in the ACC and might well have led to its dissolution. Plus they are needed now as ESPN woos Notre Dame. North Carolina and Virginia/VaTech would have been okay, but the Heels and Hoos are needed for lacrosse attraction to the Irish. VaTech and N.C. State would have done, but U.N.C. doesn't want Texas and OU, and Kansas would be on an island. So in that regard ESPN's desire to plant those properties in the SEC carries the weight of legitimacy. OU is more of a FOX property so I assume that is why they aren't part of the rumor. It's a slow time but rumors are heating up. It doesn't mean much, but it gives us something to discuss.

Fair enough. As a Fox vs. ESPN game this scenario makes more sense, as the PAC is left without a partner fighting for it.

(03-03-2015 10:01 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 07:35 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 07:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  No doubt the networks are the big driver on this. I think the networks give the conferences the schools they are willing to pay for and the conferences for the most part work on landing the schools they want on that list. BC's AD basically said ESPN told the ACC who to take from the Big East. The B12 admitted the networks pushed TCU and WVU as the adds they would pay for. That is why the PAC is really screwed. They have no network in their corner. I think if they seriously want to get more than the leftovers of expansion they need to swing ESPN or FOX a share of their network.

Hopefully, whatever happens, all the B12 schools find homes. The B12 is probably more valuable parted out to the other conferences than it currently is whole.

I agree with you that the networks provide the menu and the conferences select the entrees. One of the bigger questions I have with this rumor is whether 16 really is the magic number, or not? Just stop and think for a moment about the issues solved here by going to 18.

1. Oklahoma could be accommodated.
2. Vanderbilt stays put.
3. Regions become more of the mini conference they are today.
4. Balance between stronger and weaker regions are accounted for by the 4th slot for a conference playoff going to the best overall school that doesn't win one of the three divisions. Which keeps more of the 18 fan bases energized later into the season than a 4 division model.

Let the SEC go for Texas and Kansas, but let them also pick up an Oklahoma school, and a school of Texas's choice. Let the ACC land Notre Dame, complete their footprint with West Virginia, but also be free to choose either or both of Cincinnati and Connecticut. The PAC could still take Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech to go with B.Y.U., or Rice. If the Sooners should choose to opt with Texas for the SEC in that scenario then Oklahoma State would be available to the PAC as well. But for now let's assume that FOX insists upon the Sooners going to the Big 10. The result would be better divisions for the SEC and ACC, the top 68 schools within more than a reasonable doubt being included, and a possible set up like this:

SEC:
West: Arkansas, Baylor, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

ACC:
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Atlantic: Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

(With 3 divisions of 6 you can play 5 divisional games, 2 rotating games from each of the other two divisions, and 3 out of conference P5 games which could include in conference rivals as a non conference game to solve a few residual situations created by the rotation.)

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State Rutgers

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, B.Y.U., Utah
Colorado, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Whether 16 or 18 is the final number, getting it done would be a good thing for the game. I just think 18 cleans up the landscape in a more politically feasible way for the ACC and SEC. 16 makes for a stronger tighter conference, but 18 makes for better divisions and the at large conference playoff bid makes for better races near season's end. These 68 schools truly help to create a more definitive separation between the G5 and what would be a reasonably solid P4. Thoughts?

Most realignment scenarios I see have a PAC problem. We think the PAC will take leftovers or lower quality teams in order to keep up with the Jones of the SEC/Big 10. Perhaps more likely is they perform a ninja Swofford move and grab someone like Kansas first (I bet Kansas would prefer the PAC to the SEC if the Big 10 isn't calling). Texas Tech and TCU probably aren't worth it to the PAC without Texas.

The same thing for Iowa State to the Big 10. Why, except as an add on to grab a bigger school or to even out the league? In fact Kansas/Iowa St would fit better in the PAC AAU school league with new markets rather than the SEC/ Big 10, if the PAC can't get Texas.

What this means for the SEC is that we are most likely to wind up with Ok St/WVU/Baylor type schools rather than the big wigs of Kansas/Texas.

The rumor started from a poster on the Orangebloods and Shaggybevo Texas sites. He claimed to have a business friend who had strong ties to ESPN who said they were pushing the Texas and Kansas to the SEC rumor. It was predicated upon ESPN's interest and heavy investment in Texas's LHN and in their T3 program with Kansas. Reportedly ESPN wants the pair in one of their conferences and the SEC has the most to offer geographically and with former members of the SWC and Big 12. You do know that it was ESPN that strongly suggested Missouri? Texas has been an SEC target in the past (1991 most recently) but Kansas? The issue here is that the Big 10 is under FOX influence and the PAC is independent of network affiliation as they lease their product to both FOX and ESPN who have no stake in it. That leaves the ACC and the SEC who are mostly or totally ESPN controlled. That arrangement led to Mizzou so why wouldn't it possibly lead to Kansas? If it were left up to me we would have snagged F.S.U. and Clemson and called it a day. But that would devalue ESPN's investment in the ACC and might well have led to its dissolution. Plus they are needed now as ESPN woos Notre Dame. North Carolina and Virginia/VaTech would have been okay, but the Heels and Hoos are needed for lacrosse attraction to the Irish. VaTech and N.C. State would have done, but U.N.C. doesn't want Texas and OU, and Kansas would be on an island. So in that regard ESPN's desire to plant those properties in the SEC carries the weight of legitimacy. OU is more of a FOX property so I assume that is why they aren't part of the rumor. It's a slow time but rumors are heating up. It doesn't mean much, but it gives us something to discuss.

Fair enough. As a Fox vs. ESPN game this scenario makes more sense, however I am still not convinced Big 10 settles with ISU. Bigger fish.

If we make the moves with the Big 12 schools within the 3 year time frame originally discussed in the rumor then there will have to be compromise all the way around. Eight, but likely all of the Big 12 schools will need to be placed. Should the Big 10 land OU then ISU might well be the price. That's also why Baylor may come into play for the SEC. If we land two brands in Texas and Kansas there may be a price tag for us where one of the little brothers is concerned. We'll just have to wait and see.

(03-02-2015 07:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='jhawkmvp' pid='11825962' dateline='1425283448']

And Slive or replacement, will have to do a lot of balloon floating and sugar coating to get the average SEC fan to drink the Koolade that ESPN would be putting out there. However the academicians would buy it and try to sell it too. I can see the value both strategically and for building up on a weakness of the SEC. But if Oklahoma is hanging out there trying to decide whether or not to go to the Big 10 then it will be a very hard sell to our guys. Texas would be welcomed by all but Aggie, but that's understandable.

I started a thread on the Arkansas board I frequent with this rumor in it, and the few fans that actually visit that crazy board did not like the idea of adding Texas and its B.S. I suspected most of the posters were doing this after reading that rumor

(03-03-2015 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 09:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  In my informal and oh! so not scientific research in the last few days, if the rumor is true, the Kansas administration will have a bigger job dealing with and convincing their fan base than Maryland did.

And Slive or replacement, will have to do a lot of balloon floating and sugar coating to get the average SEC fan to drink the Koolade that ESPN would be putting out there. However the academicians would buy it and try to sell it too. I can see the value both strategically and for building up on a weakness of the SEC. But if Oklahoma is hanging out there trying to decide whether or not to go to the Big 10 then it will be a very hard sell to our guys. Texas would be welcomed by all but Aggie, but that's understandable. But in the end if having them profits A&M as well that might not be as tough as it first appears. But truly the term "Jayhawk" doesn't fit comfortably in any phrase uttered with a drawl.

One of the Jayhawk sites I visited was open to the idea. Still I think you are right. But if they were to move with Texas and renew rivalry with Missouri and develop Arkansas it would be doable, not probable, or even popular, but doable.

Lot will depend on the GoR. There are have always been rumors in B12 land that Texas has an out of the GoR somehow and that is why they were willing to do it, because in the end they knew it could not hold them if they wanted to leave. Not sure about how true it is or not, though the most frequently mentioned out would be related to state sovereignty. If UT does have an out then placing other schools would not be necessary, though I would not count on that in any way. Politically, GoR or not, it will be best for Texas, OU, and KU, if all the public little brothers (TTU, KSU, and OSU) find a safe harbor (P4 home). For Texas, finding a home for TCU and Baylor (especially they have out-sized power in the TX legislature) would be advantageous as well.

It would be an interesting situation if it played out. KU fans are becoming more receptive to the SEC than they used to be. KU fans were always very happy with the Big 8 and original Big 12, so they have not really followed realignment as much as OU, Texas, and WVU fans. They mostly reacted negatively to the schools leaving without really understanding why those schools did it (long term stability and the promise of greater revenue). I think KU fans are starting to become more like OU and UT fans in that they are starting to get disillusioned a bit with the lack of competition for KU BB and the lack of national respect for the conference. Plus, over the last few years they are coming to grips with the face the B12 might not be a long term home. The eleven straight B12 BB titles is nice, but most would prefer a program or two to challenge us year in and year out. Kentucky and Florida would do that in the SEC. The reaction was more mixed than I expected to this rumor, though there are still some never the SEC fans out there.

I'd still say KU fans lean B1G >>> PAC >> SEC/ACC if the B12 goes under. However, I think it would be an easy sell if KU went to any other power conference because if it happens likely Texas and/or OU are leaving as well and what remains after that will be a G5 level conference. KU would want no part of that. Look at MU fans. They were all about the B1G one year prior to their move and previously to that if they left the B8/B12. I never saw the SEC mentioned by them until the few months before they left, but the fans for the most part all got strongly on board once the decision was made to leave.

SEC fans have been more receptive to the idea of KU to the SEC than I ever expected. There are definitely schools they would want to add before KU for cultural or market reasons (which I totally understand), but they seem to realize KU would be a BB add and provide great value in that manner in raising the SEC BB profile. I've seen a lot less hell no to KU from SEC fans than I assumed I'd see. I think SEC fans care about being the best conference in athletics and the chink the SEC armor is BB. UNC would be the preferred BB and market add as culturally they are southern and deliver a much larger state than KS. However, KU is probably the second best BB target that is possible for the SEC, and if the ACC is not raidable, then it is the best target to shore up that BB weakness.

I expect if the talks get serious you will see the B1G and PAC come in with offers, maybe working in concert. If the B12 dies then the ACC schools the B1G covets will likely no longer be possible to land as the ACC would likely be stongly backed by ESPN. The B1G especially would come in guns blazing as the academic preferences of its membership limit acceptable candidates greatly compared to the SEC. Losing Texas and Kansas from it's list with the ACC schools off the board would really limit it's options, though OU and Uconn would not be much different than the OU/KU add often mentioned, minus 1 AAU school.

(03-03-2015 05:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Whether 16 or 18 is the final number, getting it done would be a good thing for the game. I just think 18 cleans up the landscape in a more politically feasible way for the ACC and SEC. 16 makes for a stronger tighter conference, but 18 makes for better divisions and the at large conference playoff bid makes for better races near season's end. These 68 schools truly help to create a more definitive separation between the G5 and what would be a reasonably solid P4. Thoughts?

I agree. I prefer a larger number than 64 myself just because it seems that politically it still leaves some good programs on the outside looking in (BYU, Uconn, Cincinnati, UCF, etc.). If the cases in the courts don't cause many current FBS schools to drop out then I think you could see some odd conference sizes and even future expansion to accommodate changing demographics as some universities gain stature. The B1G has openly talked about 20 or even 24 schools. I think if a conference can land good targets they will do it and deal with how to split the teams later. As mentioned before when conferences champs are deregulated you can do some interesting splits with 15 as well, as has been brought up here in other discussions. You can do 3 divisions and a wild card with 15 or 18 and can do 4 divisions with 16 or 20. All work better than the 14 the ACC, SEC, and B1G are working with now IMO. Shoot with 24 you could do 6 divisions of 4 and have 2 wild cards. That would be pretty sweet as well.

The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

In terms of the Kansas Tier 3 inventory, as part of the bigger picture how important would that be for the short term? If we assume that through the dissolution of the Big12 (either by the passage of time or placement of enough teams to dissolve the league) that KU's Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights would belong to the new conference, the Tier 3 obstacle is what's left. Let's say that league is the B1G for the sake of discussion since it's not an ESPN T3 league.

The top matchups on their schedule (like KU/Michigan State, KU/Wisconsin, KU/Indiana, KU/Ohio State, etc) would be taken up on Tier 1 and Tier 2. That would leave less attractive matchups on their schedule such as KU/Nebraska or KU/Minnesota. Of those, KU would only own Tier 3 rights to home games. Given our record in Allen Fieldhouse, we'd likely be heavy favorites for those games, so they'd probably mostly be among the least attractive games for broadcast (although admittedly that's the nature of T3 in general).

In contrast, when we'd play on the road those rights would belong to the home team and fall into the Big 10 network, and with KU as the visitor the games would likely be closer and more entertaining for the average fan to watch. I don't know if it'd do much if anything for carriage rights for the Big 10 network (which is already in the KC area), but it's possible that ad rates would go up for games including KU, so there could be some slight value add to the Big 10 network. The B1G could also likely get a bump in their T1 & T2 rates since KU games would now be part of their inventory.

(03-04-2015 01:11 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  In terms of the Kansas Tier 3 inventory, as part of the bigger picture how important would that be for the short term? If we assume that through the dissolution of the Big12 (either by the passage of time or placement of enough teams to dissolve the league) that KU's Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights would belong to the new conference, the Tier 3 obstacle is what's left. Let's say that league is the B1G for the sake of discussion since it's not an ESPN T3 league.

The top matchups on their schedule (like KU/Michigan State, KU/Wisconsin, KU/Indiana, KU/Ohio State, etc) would be taken up on Tier 1 and Tier 2. That would leave less attractive matchups on their schedule such as KU/Nebraska or KU/Minnesota. Of those, KU would only own Tier 3 rights to home games. Given our record in Allen Fieldhouse, we'd likely be heavy favorites for those games, so they'd probably mostly be among the least attractive games for broadcast (although admittedly that's the nature of T3 in general).

In contrast, when we'd play on the road those rights would belong to the home team and fall into the Big 10 network, and with KU as the visitor the games would likely be closer and more entertaining for the average fan to watch. I don't know if it'd do much if anything for carriage rights for the Big 10 network (which is already in the KC area), but it's possible that ad rates would go up for games including KU, so there could be some slight value add to the Big 10 network. The B1G could also likely get a bump in their T1 & T2 rates since KU games would now be part of their inventory.

The funny thing is...The Big Ten Network is considered Tier 2. Kansas signing on to it would mean that they really wouldn't have anything falling down to tier 3. But ssshhhh, don't tell anyone.

In The Big Ten, their tier 3 wouldn't include much at all in regards to TV rights. So ESPN would simply be owning radio rights. Yay....

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

(03-04-2015 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

H1 the SEC won't be settling for anything. If they land a couple of brands and take a little brother that is another matter. As far as predictions I've never made any as I just like to examine options. Some seem more likely than others. But I'm marking these predictions of yours down and will hold you to them. So we'll wait and see.

(03-04-2015 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

H1 the SEC won't be settling for anything. If they land a couple of brands and take a little brother that is another matter. As far as predictions I've never made any as I just like to examine options. Some seem more likely than others. But I'm marking these predictions of yours down and will hold you to them. So we'll wait and see.

Yes they will because it will suit their purposes and their pocketbooks to do so. I am sorry but your statements to the contrary just aren't bearing much weight against what I am seeing. It pretty much just sounds like a fan's perspective. I don't wish for that to come off as an insult but this is pretty much the only time we ever really disagree and it is because you get caught up in the "SEC against the World" mentality.

(03-04-2015 06:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

H1 the SEC won't be settling for anything. If they land a couple of brands and take a little brother that is another matter. As far as predictions I've never made any as I just like to examine options. Some seem more likely than others. But I'm marking these predictions of yours down and will hold you to them. So we'll wait and see.

Yes they will because it will suit their purposes and their pocketbooks to do so. I am sorry but your statements to the contrary just aren't bearing much weight against what I am seeing. It pretty much just sounds like a fan's perspective. I don't wish for that to come off as an insult but this is pretty much the only time we ever really disagree and it is because you get caught up in the "SEC against the World" mentality.

No, it is because I know that the SEC and ESPN structured the SECN's contract to prevent its details from becoming public until after the Big 10's new contract is inked. You have no idea what we will be making and that is by design. We front loaded the contract period to pay for the start up so that it would be June of 2017 (the end of fiscal year 2016-17) before the first true payouts for the network become public record. Money, and geography, which relates to how far the fans' disposable income may be stretched, will determine the finish. Texas knows that, Oklahoma knows that, and our conferences know that. And H1 the SEC as a conference still leads the Big 10 in total earnings, attendance, and in the Nielsen ratings. And we saturate the markets we have by a greater percentage. So just because you believe the BTN pays a little bit more will make a difference think again. TV money for the most profitable programs is less than 15% of the total revenue. Michigan and Ohio State are near the top, but the SEC places half to slightly over half in the top 20 revenue producers depending upon the research firm you consult. So yeah, it will come down to money, but that certainly puts us at no disadvantage.

(03-04-2015 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

Thanks for being polite.
My assertion was that the ACC turned down Texahoma, and they did.
Carolina and Texas have developed a nice relationship on the basketball side in spite of the contentious relationship Rick Barns had with Dean Smith when Barns coached at Clemson.

(03-04-2015 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

Thanks for being polite.
My assertion was that the ACC turned down Texahoma, and they did.
Carolina and Texas have developed a nice relationship on the basketball side in spite of the contentious relationship Rick Barns had with Dean Smith when Barns coached at Clemson.

Oh I completely understand why they would and did turn down the concept of Texahoma. You will have no argument from me there. The problem in that instance though wasn't Texas. It was Oklahoma. Surprisingly enough, Oklahoma isn't desired by the ACC. You already know that. They don't fit culturally at all despite how strong their football program is.

Texas though, well Texas and North Carolina have a hell of a lot in common. Sure there may be a few philosophical differences but that is always the case. What they have in common is much more binding....money and power.

Perhaps what you caught was some of that initial feeling out between the two. That was and still is inevitable. They both have a lot to gain from each other though.

(03-04-2015 09:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The talk about bringing Kansas to the SEC is all about maneuvers in the long term negotiations. The purchase of Kansas's rights was a great short term investment. Talking about bringing them to the SEC helps in other negotiations but doesn't necessarily mean it is a serious attempt to actually bring Kansas into the SEC. That would be a horrible choice by Kansas first of all, they aren't going to sign that dotted line. People are forgetting the cultural issue within Kansas that goes back to the Civil War days.

Just because someone uses a proxy to put ideas out there to certain fan bases, that doesn't mean it is something that is actually happening. In fact it is more likely to be smoke and mirrors. Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC? Come on, have some discernment and know when you are being fed disinformation.

ESPN is just driving up the selling price of those Kansas rights that they hold.


In regards to the PAC problem? That is easily fixed with a big pay day. That will happen with the dissolution of the big 12. Why? Because Fox will need their games even more. What else Fox will need though is content for the early Noon Eastern Time slots. That means the PAC will be told to take the Central Time Zone teams that are available. If they do that then they will be earning a very big pay day. They will inevitably take Texas Tech, TCU, ISU and KSU because of the money. The PAC knows they are in the weakest position comparatively to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC is the better choice for Texas. The PAC tried to get ahead of everyone else with their very public and very aggressive push for Texas and friends. That failed....twice.

The PAC will accept the inevitable.

1. We agree that a pay day will help the PAC accept a Texas footprint even without the Horns.

2. I agree, and have discussed in PM's the possibility that the Kansas rumor is designed to bid things up a bit to the Big 10. XLance had already suggested that.

3. Do not lose sight that the buyout of the T3 agreement with Kansas is almost identical to that of Oklahoma's with FOX. That makes for some intriguing possibilities as well.

4. I don't think Texas is out of the realm of possibility for the SEC, especially with U.N.C.'s reticence to accept them and ESPN's interest in boosting the content of the SEC and CBS's willingness to help pay for it.

The rest is a "we'll see."

If the Big 12 is about to be parsed anything could still happen with regard to Oklahoma. They aren't without options. However one interesting angle in your favor is that Texas would like to keep the RRR, but might like a slightly diminished Oklahoma to play. Right now the Horns are figuring the different angles that the SEC and other conferences could earn them money. When realignment is over it will be the content carrot that is dangled for a bigger paycheck. Instead of conferences running from too much talent, they will seeking to build it. I still would rule out Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. But if as the rumor states a compromise has been struck then you are probably safe.

Yes, the PAC will.

I have said from Day 1 that when ESPN bought up some of Kansas's broadcasting rights that it was an extremely smart short term investment. Keep in mind whom is ESPN's master. Disney pushes for profit. That means short term investments are viable. That makes for a great short term investment for ESPN because those rights will be desirable for an upcoming tv rights negotiation to the opposing party in those negotiations. So, it is nice that you and XLance are catching up with me JR but this is not new for me. What is happening now is simply vindication for me.

In regards to Oklahoma, your barbed words were not lost upon me but they absolutely were appreciated. That being said, it is funny because you still want to take shots at Big Ten capabilities despite the fact that the FIRST EVER College Football Playoff Champion came from the Big Ten. To say that Oklahoma couldn't have the success of Ohio State is very amusing to me. Hey, if you have to tell yourself that this idea of yours is part of the reason why it happens, when it happens, because it IS happening...then by all means go right ahead and believe that is why Texas is ok with it.


In terms of XLance's assertion that UNC would push for Texas to not be part of the ACC? Look, I have been polite towards XLance on this because he is a good guy but honestly I don't think he truly knows what he is talking about on that. I am generally more correct in forecasting future events than pretty much anyone else on the forum and it isn't all due to my extraordinary intellect. I know things too. The way Texas comes to the ACC wont be in a way that is all that threatening to UNC but the positive aspects of what is to come far outweigh any worries about Texas.

Thanks for being polite.
My assertion was that the ACC turned down Texahoma, and they did.
Carolina and Texas have developed a nice relationship on the basketball side in spite of the contentious relationship Rick Barns had with Dean Smith when Barns coached at Clemson.

Oh I completely understand why they would and did turn down the concept of Texahoma. You will have no argument from me there. The problem in that instance though wasn't Texas. It was Oklahoma. Surprisingly enough, Oklahoma isn't desired by the ACC. You already know that. They don't fit culturally at all despite how strong their football program is.

Texas though, well Texas and North Carolina have a hell of a lot in common. Sure there may be a few philosophical differences but that is always the case. What they have in common is much more binding....money and power.

Perhaps what you caught was some of that initial feeling out between the two. That was and still is inevitable. They both have a lot to gain from each other though.

The only thing that they would have in common is the desire to make more money. Texas is a large state school and U.N.C. is a state school but functions more like a large private school. One worships pigskin and the other hoops. Both want to be the top dog and expect others to bow to their desires. No H1 money is the only common language and culture that they have. Well they do have one other thing in common. Texas would love nothing more than to be the King of a conference that permitted them to play multiple times in state. North Carolina has the same desires. Too bad that makes them mutually exclusive sets! I don't think Texas goes to the ACC, not even as an independent. They will either wait to rebuild the Big 12 which is their #1 choice, or they will move somewhere they can keep what at one time was the traditional line up of regional foes.

The real issue here is that the SEC isn't going to attempt to crack the ACC and for several good reasons. 1. ESPN won't pay for it. 2. ESPN will likely find a way to make the SECN available at prime rate in the two markets they covet the most. 3. The SEC doesn't want the door to the Southeast cracked open so they won't do anything that could jar the house so to speak. 4. ESPN will pay for more expansion westward in order to sew up key properties in more exclusive ESPN contracts.

So as I see it H1 the Big 10 is limited. If they can't coax U.N.C. and UVa then their only options are Iowa State (duplicated footprint), Kansas (a smallish market that the Big 10 already penetrates), Oklahoma (a content addition that does not meet academic standards), and Texas (who would butcher and eat Bevo before they moved North). Truly your options are Kansas and Oklahoma. The only "go to" back up you have is Connecticut. I doubt the ACC will be cracked because any chance that N.D. goes all in keeps ESPN's backing constant.

The SEC's options (since the ACC is likely off the menu) are just as limited however. For us it would be Texas and Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, or Texas and a school of their choosing. It's possible the SEC could nab West Virginia, but if ESPN wants them in the ACC that's what will happen.

If there is a compromise it is that all products will stick with their Networks. Oklahoma stays with FOX and Kansas & Texas stick with ESPN. Everyone else is up for grabs. But hey, things are progressing and things are in motion. Fans and conferences should enjoy dreaming big because in the end if things move we will all get something we want and none of us will get everything we want.