(02-16-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  If the SEC gets #1, they don't need #2

I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Trying to capture "the Texas market" is like trying to do the same with New York City. It's fools gold!
The SEC would be smart to invite another school (Oklahoma) that is a cultural fit, let that capture as much of the state of Texas as it will and be satisfied. Anything else and you will start to go against the culture of your own conference which will eventually lead to problems.

I don't see that as an apt comparison. The cultures of the Big 12 and SEC aren't that different.

For the SEC to try to capture NYC, that would be fool's gold. We're already in TX, however, and I think there's a few options that would fit nicely.

Ironically what Xlance is referring to is the ability of UT to beg for their buddies and become a voting block that is toxic to the rest of the conference. It's why Arkansas wanted out of the SWC and why essentially a Texas conference was so backbiting and corrupt. But having 33-40% of the Big 12 was poison to Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri too. So from that angle he's right about seeking too many Texas schools. Ideally Oklahoma does give us all we need.

I said "ironically" because the rest of the ACC had those issues with 4 schools in an 8 school conference coming from North Carolina. They still own 25% of the voting edge and since they are more or less allied with Virginia they actually control 6 of 15 votes now and when Clemson votes with them 7. The additions they have made however have actually settled things down rather than causing them to be more divisive. But it is why they have to rely upon ESPN to keep the football first schools in line by refusing to pay the SEC for taking them. Since none of those schools save Georgia Tech have any appeal to the Big 10 academically they are essentially locked in.

If UT did come to the SEC, other than as a brand and content multiplier, we don't need Oklahoma either. The issue here for Texas is an interesting one. While in the same conference with the Aggies, A&M never challenged their status within the state. The only rival that gained ground on them was Oklahoma. If Texas joined the SEC they would negate part of the Aggies present advantage. And, if they watched Oklahoma and Kansas move to the Big 10 the Sooners would never again seriously threaten them for N. Texas and Houston recruits. By alienating OU but keeping the RRR and by joining the SEC Texas has its only path back to prominence within their state. And even if Texas brought TTU along with them they would still only be 2 votes out 16 provided A&M didn't vote with them.

So the question is does Texas give up its power for greater revenue, and to gain an advantage over two rivals, or do they further isolate themselves from the people of Texas by moving to the PAC or Big 10, two conference that nobody in the state of Texas cares about unless they are academicians within the UT system? So they can choose to be snooty and isolated, or humbled and successful. That will be the fascinating social study to watch.

It's an interesting game.

I'm not confident at all that Texas will end up in the SEC, but I can't honestly see a better outcome for them. The academic argument against the SEC has always been a flawed one and it strikes me as grandstanding rather than genuine anyway. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whom one plays football against as to whether your school is as strong as it can be academically. It's about perception more than anything.

The Big 12 is not and never has been an elite academic league. They had a few extra AAUs for a while, but that's it. The SWC was never an elite academic league. Didn't seem to bother anyone.

I feel much more confident about Oklahoma and I'm not even sure we'd have to take Oklahoma State to get them although I think we would.

What do you think about this approach?

Texas, Rice, Oklahoma, and Kansas

If the league cares as much about improving the academic credibility of the conference as they say they do then Rice makes sense...especially if UT and KU are coming along. You've basically added a school akin to Vanderbilt. Are they worth the money? No. Do they make the SEC more sound academically? Yes. How much is perception worth, I suppose that's the question.

They also don't threaten the power structure and no coach will hate to see Rice on the schedule especially if we move to exclusively Power games.

They're also a more Southern option that allows us to take advantage of getting Kansas without going further outside the region.

Would UT be amenable to adding Rice instead of Texas Tech? I don't know, but the thought just crossed my mind.

(02-16-2017 03:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Trying to capture "the Texas market" is like trying to do the same with New York City. It's fools gold!
The SEC would be smart to invite another school (Oklahoma) that is a cultural fit, let that capture as much of the state of Texas as it will and be satisfied. Anything else and you will start to go against the culture of your own conference which will eventually lead to problems.

I don't see that as an apt comparison. The cultures of the Big 12 and SEC aren't that different.

For the SEC to try to capture NYC, that would be fool's gold. We're already in TX, however, and I think there's a few options that would fit nicely.

Ironically what Xlance is referring to is the ability of UT to beg for their buddies and become a voting block that is toxic to the rest of the conference. It's why Arkansas wanted out of the SWC and why essentially a Texas conference was so backbiting and corrupt. But having 33-40% of the Big 12 was poison to Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri too. So from that angle he's right about seeking too many Texas schools. Ideally Oklahoma does give us all we need.

I said "ironically" because the rest of the ACC had those issues with 4 schools in an 8 school conference coming from North Carolina. They still own 25% of the voting edge and since they are more or less allied with Virginia they actually control 6 of 15 votes now and when Clemson votes with them 7. The additions they have made however have actually settled things down rather than causing them to be more divisive. But it is why they have to rely upon ESPN to keep the football first schools in line by refusing to pay the SEC for taking them. Since none of those schools save Georgia Tech have any appeal to the Big 10 academically they are essentially locked in.

If UT did come to the SEC, other than as a brand and content multiplier, we don't need Oklahoma either. The issue here for Texas is an interesting one. While in the same conference with the Aggies, A&M never challenged their status within the state. The only rival that gained ground on them was Oklahoma. If Texas joined the SEC they would negate part of the Aggies present advantage. And, if they watched Oklahoma and Kansas move to the Big 10 the Sooners would never again seriously threaten them for N. Texas and Houston recruits. By alienating OU but keeping the RRR and by joining the SEC Texas has its only path back to prominence within their state. And even if Texas brought TTU along with them they would still only be 2 votes out 16 provided A&M didn't vote with them.

So the question is does Texas give up its power for greater revenue, and to gain an advantage over two rivals, or do they further isolate themselves from the people of Texas by moving to the PAC or Big 10, two conference that nobody in the state of Texas cares about unless they are academicians within the UT system? So they can choose to be snooty and isolated, or humbled and successful. That will be the fascinating social study to watch.

It's an interesting game.

I'm not confident at all that Texas will end up in the SEC, but I can't honestly see a better outcome for them. The academic argument against the SEC has always been a flawed one and it strikes me as grandstanding rather than genuine anyway. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whom one plays football against as to whether your school is as strong as it can be academically. It's about perception more than anything.

The Big 12 is not and never has been an elite academic league. They had a few extra AAUs for a while, but that's it. The SWC was never an elite academic league. Didn't seem to bother anyone.

I feel much more confident about Oklahoma and I'm not even sure we'd have to take Oklahoma State to get them although I think we would.

What do you think about this approach?

Texas, Rice, Oklahoma, and Kansas

If the league cares as much about improving the academic credibility of the conference as they say they do then Rice makes sense...especially if UT and KU are coming along. You've basically added a school akin to Vanderbilt. Are they worth the money? No. Do they make the SEC more sound academically? Yes. How much is perception worth, I suppose that's the question.

They also don't threaten the power structure and no coach will hate to see Rice on the schedule especially if we move to exclusively Power games.

They're also a more Southern option that allows us to take advantage of getting Kansas without going further outside the region.

Would UT be amenable to adding Rice instead of Texas Tech? I don't know, but the thought just crossed my mind.

There was a time, not too long ago, when playing for conference championships in the ACC meant a lot more than playing for national titles. And yes during this time period, academics really really mattered, because the championships that you won were won against peers.
Times have changed, college athletics are now marketed on more of a national scope than a regional one and the quest for national titles has overtaken the desire to win just conference championships, but in our heart of hearts we know we still win true championships against our peers.

One advantage that the PAC has over the B1G and SEC in the realignment game for Texas and Oklahoma is that the PAC essentially *needs* big-time expansion to keep up. The B1G and SEC are growing and outperforming even without further homerun expansion. In fact, the B1G and SEC must be ultra-selective in expansion so as to prevent dilution.

The PAC and its networks have plenty of untapped potential and room to negotiate.

We know that the PAC is willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to land Texas and Oklahoma. That offer was on the table; it was the Big 12 schools that backed out, not the PAC. The need for Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC is even more pronounced now.

So, how does the PAC attract Texas and Oklahoma?

I'm certain that there is an acceptable deal for the PAC, ESPN, and Texas (and perhaps FOX) that would tip the PACN over the edge to finally benefit from full distribution, including DirecTV. It likely requires a hefty payment by ESPN (and perhaps FOX) for a portion of the PACN and a payment to Texas (by PAC? or ESPN/FOX?) to purchase the LHN and then repurpose as a PACN regional network.

And, I think the PAC will make it happen. Eastern division of Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma St., plus Kansas and Iowa St. The latter two being AAU schools with great basketball and additional markets. Gives Texas and Oklahoma their own division to dominate. Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., and even Oklahoma actually fit well with other PAC institutions. Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are outliers, but fill a similar role for the eastern part of the conference as Oregon State and Washington State do for the legacy members.

Kansas St. will be the primary casualty. TCU and WVU are the new kids on the block and should be happy for the ride along the way. May be they get an ACC lifeline? (that would actually make a clean break for the Big 12). Or, may be they help the AAC become the true tweener conference? Baylor's reputation has been damaged too severely for anyone outside of Waco to care.

I'm not sure when exactly the scales will tip in favor of testing or buying out the Grant of Rights, but every year closer to 2025, the more likely a deal will make sense. I believe next year is the halfway point of the original Big 12 media contract and Grant of Rights.

(02-16-2017 03:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 12:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2017 03:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I understand why people say that and I can't say for certain they are wrong. However, I can't see a downside in owning an additional presence in TX. The state is so large and populous that I think a 2nd school is a net positive.

Trying to capture "the Texas market" is like trying to do the same with New York City. It's fools gold!
The SEC would be smart to invite another school (Oklahoma) that is a cultural fit, let that capture as much of the state of Texas as it will and be satisfied. Anything else and you will start to go against the culture of your own conference which will eventually lead to problems.

I don't see that as an apt comparison. The cultures of the Big 12 and SEC aren't that different.

For the SEC to try to capture NYC, that would be fool's gold. We're already in TX, however, and I think there's a few options that would fit nicely.

Ironically what Xlance is referring to is the ability of UT to beg for their buddies and become a voting block that is toxic to the rest of the conference. It's why Arkansas wanted out of the SWC and why essentially a Texas conference was so backbiting and corrupt. But having 33-40% of the Big 12 was poison to Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri too. So from that angle he's right about seeking too many Texas schools. Ideally Oklahoma does give us all we need.

I said "ironically" because the rest of the ACC had those issues with 4 schools in an 8 school conference coming from North Carolina. They still own 25% of the voting edge and since they are more or less allied with Virginia they actually control 6 of 15 votes now and when Clemson votes with them 7. The additions they have made however have actually settled things down rather than causing them to be more divisive. But it is why they have to rely upon ESPN to keep the football first schools in line by refusing to pay the SEC for taking them. Since none of those schools save Georgia Tech have any appeal to the Big 10 academically they are essentially locked in.

If UT did come to the SEC, other than as a brand and content multiplier, we don't need Oklahoma either. The issue here for Texas is an interesting one. While in the same conference with the Aggies, A&M never challenged their status within the state. The only rival that gained ground on them was Oklahoma. If Texas joined the SEC they would negate part of the Aggies present advantage. And, if they watched Oklahoma and Kansas move to the Big 10 the Sooners would never again seriously threaten them for N. Texas and Houston recruits. By alienating OU but keeping the RRR and by joining the SEC Texas has its only path back to prominence within their state. And even if Texas brought TTU along with them they would still only be 2 votes out 16 provided A&M didn't vote with them.

So the question is does Texas give up its power for greater revenue, and to gain an advantage over two rivals, or do they further isolate themselves from the people of Texas by moving to the PAC or Big 10, two conference that nobody in the state of Texas cares about unless they are academicians within the UT system? So they can choose to be snooty and isolated, or humbled and successful. That will be the fascinating social study to watch.

It's an interesting game.

I'm not confident at all that Texas will end up in the SEC, but I can't honestly see a better outcome for them. The academic argument against the SEC has always been a flawed one and it strikes me as grandstanding rather than genuine anyway. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whom one plays football against as to whether your school is as strong as it can be academically. It's about perception more than anything.

The Big 12 is not and never has been an elite academic league. They had a few extra AAUs for a while, but that's it. The SWC was never an elite academic league. Didn't seem to bother anyone.

I feel much more confident about Oklahoma and I'm not even sure we'd have to take Oklahoma State to get them although I think we would.

What do you think about this approach?

Texas, Rice, Oklahoma, and Kansas

If the league cares as much about improving the academic credibility of the conference as they say they do then Rice makes sense...especially if UT and KU are coming along. You've basically added a school akin to Vanderbilt. Are they worth the money? No. Do they make the SEC more sound academically? Yes. How much is perception worth, I suppose that's the question.

They also don't threaten the power structure and no coach will hate to see Rice on the schedule especially if we move to exclusively Power games.

They're also a more Southern option that allows us to take advantage of getting Kansas without going further outside the region.

Would UT be amenable to adding Rice instead of Texas Tech? I don't know, but the thought just crossed my mind.

I don't think Rice will move the needle for the SEC. There are a couple of reasons for this. 1. Texas A&M does deliver all of Houston that we need. Rice therefore doesn't deliver a market, nor does it pay its way. 2. The result is that everyone's revenue potential is diminished by Rice. Their crowds are small and they don't travel all that well either.

IMO the only way we get a third Texas school, should UT decide to join, is if they insist upon Tech (the only other P class state school). I could see some politics at work there. If we have Texas we have DFW with A&M and UT, and every other city in Texas as well. Therefore T.C.U., Houston, Rice, S.M.U., and Baylor are out. If those can't give us full access to a big market then we don't need them.

If we were going for all academic additions then Texas, OU, KU, & ISU are the ticket. Personally if we get Texas and Oklahoma we'll stop at 16. If they insist on little state brothers we might go to 18. I think that's about it.

(02-16-2017 04:11 PM)YNot Wrote:  One advantage that the PAC has over the B1G and SEC in the realignment game for Texas and Oklahoma is that the PAC essentially *needs* big-time expansion to keep up. The B1G and SEC are growing and outperforming even without further homerun expansion. In fact, the B1G and SEC must be ultra-selective in expansion so as to prevent dilution.

The PAC and its networks have plenty of untapped potential and room to negotiate.

We know that the PAC is willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to land Texas and Oklahoma. That offer was on the table; it was the Big 12 schools that backed out, not the PAC. The need for Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC is even more pronounced now.

So, how does the PAC attract Texas and Oklahoma?

I'm certain that there is an acceptable deal for the PAC, ESPN, and Texas (and perhaps FOX) that would tip the PACN over the edge to finally benefit from full distribution, including DirecTV. It likely requires a hefty payment by ESPN (and perhaps FOX) for a portion of the PACN and a payment to Texas (by PAC? or ESPN/FOX?) to purchase the LHN and then repurpose as a PACN regional network.

And, I think the PAC will make it happen. Eastern division of Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma St., plus Kansas and Iowa St. The latter two being AAU schools with great basketball and additional markets. Gives Texas and Oklahoma their own division to dominate. Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., and even Oklahoma actually fit well with other PAC institutions. Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are outliers, but fill a similar role for the eastern part of the conference as Oregon State and Washington State do for the legacy members.

Kansas St. will be the primary casualty. TCU and WVU are the new kids on the block and should be happy for the ride along the way. May be they get an ACC lifeline? (that would actually make a clean break for the Big 12). Or, may be they help the AAC become the true tweener conference? Baylor's reputation has been damaged too severely for anyone outside of Waco to care.

I'm not sure when exactly the scales will tip in favor of testing or buying out the Grant of Rights, but every year closer to 2025, the more likely a deal will make sense. I believe next year is the halfway point of the original Big 12 media contract and Grant of Rights.

That's always viable if the PAC sells a % of its network, and dead if they don't. Let's say it does happen. I think the SEC would then show interest in T.C.U.. They put us into the demographic that we most desire. Without UT or OU, T.C.U. becomes the stand in for obtaining our objectives. It could be their golden ticket. Who else would we add? Probably nobody for a while. We might see if three division of 5 would work.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

You play one permanent rival from each division plus your division for 6 games. You rotate 1 from each of the other divisions annually and play everyone every 4 years.

With 8 conference games you now have plenty of scheduling room for 2 OOC games against P schools annually, one local G5 state school, and an outside rival whether P or G level.

I think this is a really good fall back position for the SEC should we not land either UT or OU. And I must say that if neither of them heads to the Big 10 it doesn't really matter to me as the balance between the Big 10 and SEC will remain. Neither of us gains a real advantage. Then if the Big 10 wanted to go to 15 there's always UConn.

The ACC gets N.D. all in and we're done.

(02-16-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:11 PM)YNot Wrote:  One advantage that the PAC has over the B1G and SEC in the realignment game for Texas and Oklahoma is that the PAC essentially *needs* big-time expansion to keep up. The B1G and SEC are growing and outperforming even without further homerun expansion. In fact, the B1G and SEC must be ultra-selective in expansion so as to prevent dilution.

The PAC and its networks have plenty of untapped potential and room to negotiate.

We know that the PAC is willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to land Texas and Oklahoma. That offer was on the table; it was the Big 12 schools that backed out, not the PAC. The need for Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC is even more pronounced now.

So, how does the PAC attract Texas and Oklahoma?

I'm certain that there is an acceptable deal for the PAC, ESPN, and Texas (and perhaps FOX) that would tip the PACN over the edge to finally benefit from full distribution, including DirecTV. It likely requires a hefty payment by ESPN (and perhaps FOX) for a portion of the PACN and a payment to Texas (by PAC? or ESPN/FOX?) to purchase the LHN and then repurpose as a PACN regional network.

And, I think the PAC will make it happen. Eastern division of Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma St., plus Kansas and Iowa St. The latter two being AAU schools with great basketball and additional markets. Gives Texas and Oklahoma their own division to dominate. Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., and even Oklahoma actually fit well with other PAC institutions. Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are outliers, but fill a similar role for the eastern part of the conference as Oregon State and Washington State do for the legacy members.

Kansas St. will be the primary casualty. TCU and WVU are the new kids on the block and should be happy for the ride along the way. May be they get an ACC lifeline? (that would actually make a clean break for the Big 12). Or, may be they help the AAC become the true tweener conference? Baylor's reputation has been damaged too severely for anyone outside of Waco to care.

I'm not sure when exactly the scales will tip in favor of testing or buying out the Grant of Rights, but every year closer to 2025, the more likely a deal will make sense. I believe next year is the halfway point of the original Big 12 media contract and Grant of Rights.

That's always viable if the PAC sells a % of its network, and dead if they don't. Let's say it does happen. I think the SEC would then show interest in T.C.U.. They put us into the demographic that we most desire. Without UT or OU, T.C.U. becomes the stand in for obtaining our objectives. It could be their golden ticket. Who else would we add? Probably nobody for a while. We might see if three division of 5 would work.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

You play one permanent rival from each division plus your division for 6 games. You rotate 1 from each of the other divisions annually and play everyone every 4 years.

With 8 conference games you now have plenty of scheduling room for 2 OOC games against P schools annually, one local G5 state school, and an outside rival whether P or G level.

I think this is a really good fall back position for the SEC should we not land either UT or OU. And I must say that if neither of them heads to the Big 10 it doesn't really matter to me as the balance between the Big 10 and SEC will remain. Neither of us gains a real advantage. Then if the Big 10 wanted to go to 15 there's always UConn.

The ACC gets N.D. all in and we're done.

In that scenario JR you could even move the PAC to 16 with ESPN getting network access (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech). Kansas (not UConn) could move to the B1G.
The onus would then be on Notre Dame to join as a full member and we would find out how much value that ESPN places on West Virginia (we could get stuck).
TCU would give the SEC a stage in DFW, which is all they need.

Without West Virginia the ACC would divide like this:
Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse,Boston College
Va. Tech, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UVa, Carolina, Dook, Ga. Tech, Miami
If Notre Dame stays semi independent jus move West Virginia into their spot.

(02-16-2017 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:11 PM)YNot Wrote:  One advantage that the PAC has over the B1G and SEC in the realignment game for Texas and Oklahoma is that the PAC essentially *needs* big-time expansion to keep up. The B1G and SEC are growing and outperforming even without further homerun expansion. In fact, the B1G and SEC must be ultra-selective in expansion so as to prevent dilution.

The PAC and its networks have plenty of untapped potential and room to negotiate.

We know that the PAC is willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to land Texas and Oklahoma. That offer was on the table; it was the Big 12 schools that backed out, not the PAC. The need for Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC is even more pronounced now.

So, how does the PAC attract Texas and Oklahoma?

I'm certain that there is an acceptable deal for the PAC, ESPN, and Texas (and perhaps FOX) that would tip the PACN over the edge to finally benefit from full distribution, including DirecTV. It likely requires a hefty payment by ESPN (and perhaps FOX) for a portion of the PACN and a payment to Texas (by PAC? or ESPN/FOX?) to purchase the LHN and then repurpose as a PACN regional network.

And, I think the PAC will make it happen. Eastern division of Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma St., plus Kansas and Iowa St. The latter two being AAU schools with great basketball and additional markets. Gives Texas and Oklahoma their own division to dominate. Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., and even Oklahoma actually fit well with other PAC institutions. Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are outliers, but fill a similar role for the eastern part of the conference as Oregon State and Washington State do for the legacy members.

Kansas St. will be the primary casualty. TCU and WVU are the new kids on the block and should be happy for the ride along the way. May be they get an ACC lifeline? (that would actually make a clean break for the Big 12). Or, may be they help the AAC become the true tweener conference? Baylor's reputation has been damaged too severely for anyone outside of Waco to care.

I'm not sure when exactly the scales will tip in favor of testing or buying out the Grant of Rights, but every year closer to 2025, the more likely a deal will make sense. I believe next year is the halfway point of the original Big 12 media contract and Grant of Rights.

That's always viable if the PAC sells a % of its network, and dead if they don't. Let's say it does happen. I think the SEC would then show interest in T.C.U.. They put us into the demographic that we most desire. Without UT or OU, T.C.U. becomes the stand in for obtaining our objectives. It could be their golden ticket. Who else would we add? Probably nobody for a while. We might see if three division of 5 would work.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

You play one permanent rival from each division plus your division for 6 games. You rotate 1 from each of the other divisions annually and play everyone every 4 years.

With 8 conference games you now have plenty of scheduling room for 2 OOC games against P schools annually, one local G5 state school, and an outside rival whether P or G level.

I think this is a really good fall back position for the SEC should we not land either UT or OU. And I must say that if neither of them heads to the Big 10 it doesn't really matter to me as the balance between the Big 10 and SEC will remain. Neither of us gains a real advantage. Then if the Big 10 wanted to go to 15 there's always UConn.

The ACC gets N.D. all in and we're done.

In that scenario JR you could even move the PAC to 16 with ESPN getting network access (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech). Kansas (not UConn) could move to the B1G.
The onus would then be on Notre Dame to join as a full member and we would find out how much value that ESPN places on West Virginia (we could get stuck).
TCU would give the SEC a stage in DFW, which is all they need.

Without West Virginia the ACC would divide like this:
Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse,Boston College
Va. Tech, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UVa, Carolina, Dook, Ga. Tech, Miami
If Notre Dame stays semi independent jus move West Virginia into their spot.

I think that works out pretty nicely X. The key is that neither the SEC nor Big 10 can land both Oklahoma and Texas. That keeps the Big 10 and SEC essentially on equal footing. Texas and OU in the PAC brings that conference up, and N.D. all in with the ACC does the same. While not absolute parity in revenue it is close enough for all 4 conferences to remain competitive.

And it ought to make 10th happy!

(02-16-2017 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:11 PM)YNot Wrote:  One advantage that the PAC has over the B1G and SEC in the realignment game for Texas and Oklahoma is that the PAC essentially *needs* big-time expansion to keep up. The B1G and SEC are growing and outperforming even without further homerun expansion. In fact, the B1G and SEC must be ultra-selective in expansion so as to prevent dilution.

The PAC and its networks have plenty of untapped potential and room to negotiate.

We know that the PAC is willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to land Texas and Oklahoma. That offer was on the table; it was the Big 12 schools that backed out, not the PAC. The need for Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC is even more pronounced now.

So, how does the PAC attract Texas and Oklahoma?

I'm certain that there is an acceptable deal for the PAC, ESPN, and Texas (and perhaps FOX) that would tip the PACN over the edge to finally benefit from full distribution, including DirecTV. It likely requires a hefty payment by ESPN (and perhaps FOX) for a portion of the PACN and a payment to Texas (by PAC? or ESPN/FOX?) to purchase the LHN and then repurpose as a PACN regional network.

And, I think the PAC will make it happen. Eastern division of Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma St., plus Kansas and Iowa St. The latter two being AAU schools with great basketball and additional markets. Gives Texas and Oklahoma their own division to dominate. Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., and even Oklahoma actually fit well with other PAC institutions. Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are outliers, but fill a similar role for the eastern part of the conference as Oregon State and Washington State do for the legacy members.

Kansas St. will be the primary casualty. TCU and WVU are the new kids on the block and should be happy for the ride along the way. May be they get an ACC lifeline? (that would actually make a clean break for the Big 12). Or, may be they help the AAC become the true tweener conference? Baylor's reputation has been damaged too severely for anyone outside of Waco to care.

I'm not sure when exactly the scales will tip in favor of testing or buying out the Grant of Rights, but every year closer to 2025, the more likely a deal will make sense. I believe next year is the halfway point of the original Big 12 media contract and Grant of Rights.

That's always viable if the PAC sells a % of its network, and dead if they don't. Let's say it does happen. I think the SEC would then show interest in T.C.U.. They put us into the demographic that we most desire. Without UT or OU, T.C.U. becomes the stand in for obtaining our objectives. It could be their golden ticket. Who else would we add? Probably nobody for a while. We might see if three division of 5 would work.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

You play one permanent rival from each division plus your division for 6 games. You rotate 1 from each of the other divisions annually and play everyone every 4 years.

With 8 conference games you now have plenty of scheduling room for 2 OOC games against P schools annually, one local G5 state school, and an outside rival whether P or G level.

I think this is a really good fall back position for the SEC should we not land either UT or OU. And I must say that if neither of them heads to the Big 10 it doesn't really matter to me as the balance between the Big 10 and SEC will remain. Neither of us gains a real advantage. Then if the Big 10 wanted to go to 15 there's always UConn.

The ACC gets N.D. all in and we're done.

In that scenario JR you could even move the PAC to 16 with ESPN getting network access (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech). Kansas (not UConn) could move to the B1G.
The onus would then be on Notre Dame to join as a full member and we would find out how much value that ESPN places on West Virginia (we could get stuck).
TCU would give the SEC a stage in DFW, which is all they need.

Without West Virginia the ACC would divide like this:
Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse,Boston College
Va. Tech, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UVa, Carolina, Dook, Ga. Tech, Miami
If Notre Dame stays semi independent jus move West Virginia into their spot.

I think that works out pretty nicely X. The key is that neither the SEC nor Big 10 can land both Oklahoma and Texas. That keeps the Big 10 and SEC essentially on equal footing. Texas and OU in the PAC brings that conference up, and N.D. all in with the ACC does the same. While not absolute parity in revenue it is close enough for all 4 conferences to remain competitive.

And it ought to make 10th happy!

I like that west of the Mississippi division. It's a good thing for all schools involved.

(02-16-2017 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:11 PM)YNot Wrote:  One advantage that the PAC has over the B1G and SEC in the realignment game for Texas and Oklahoma is that the PAC essentially *needs* big-time expansion to keep up. The B1G and SEC are growing and outperforming even without further homerun expansion. In fact, the B1G and SEC must be ultra-selective in expansion so as to prevent dilution.

The PAC and its networks have plenty of untapped potential and room to negotiate.

We know that the PAC is willing to take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State in order to land Texas and Oklahoma. That offer was on the table; it was the Big 12 schools that backed out, not the PAC. The need for Texas and Oklahoma to the PAC is even more pronounced now.

So, how does the PAC attract Texas and Oklahoma?

I'm certain that there is an acceptable deal for the PAC, ESPN, and Texas (and perhaps FOX) that would tip the PACN over the edge to finally benefit from full distribution, including DirecTV. It likely requires a hefty payment by ESPN (and perhaps FOX) for a portion of the PACN and a payment to Texas (by PAC? or ESPN/FOX?) to purchase the LHN and then repurpose as a PACN regional network.

And, I think the PAC will make it happen. Eastern division of Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma-Oklahoma St., plus Kansas and Iowa St. The latter two being AAU schools with great basketball and additional markets. Gives Texas and Oklahoma their own division to dominate. Texas, Kansas, Iowa St., and even Oklahoma actually fit well with other PAC institutions. Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are outliers, but fill a similar role for the eastern part of the conference as Oregon State and Washington State do for the legacy members.

Kansas St. will be the primary casualty. TCU and WVU are the new kids on the block and should be happy for the ride along the way. May be they get an ACC lifeline? (that would actually make a clean break for the Big 12). Or, may be they help the AAC become the true tweener conference? Baylor's reputation has been damaged too severely for anyone outside of Waco to care.

I'm not sure when exactly the scales will tip in favor of testing or buying out the Grant of Rights, but every year closer to 2025, the more likely a deal will make sense. I believe next year is the halfway point of the original Big 12 media contract and Grant of Rights.

That's always viable if the PAC sells a % of its network, and dead if they don't. Let's say it does happen. I think the SEC would then show interest in T.C.U.. They put us into the demographic that we most desire. Without UT or OU, T.C.U. becomes the stand in for obtaining our objectives. It could be their golden ticket. Who else would we add? Probably nobody for a while. We might see if three division of 5 would work.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

You play one permanent rival from each division plus your division for 6 games. You rotate 1 from each of the other divisions annually and play everyone every 4 years.

With 8 conference games you now have plenty of scheduling room for 2 OOC games against P schools annually, one local G5 state school, and an outside rival whether P or G level.

I think this is a really good fall back position for the SEC should we not land either UT or OU. And I must say that if neither of them heads to the Big 10 it doesn't really matter to me as the balance between the Big 10 and SEC will remain. Neither of us gains a real advantage. Then if the Big 10 wanted to go to 15 there's always UConn.

The ACC gets N.D. all in and we're done.

In that scenario JR you could even move the PAC to 16 with ESPN getting network access (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech). Kansas (not UConn) could move to the B1G.
The onus would then be on Notre Dame to join as a full member and we would find out how much value that ESPN places on West Virginia (we could get stuck).
TCU would give the SEC a stage in DFW, which is all they need.

Without West Virginia the ACC would divide like this:
Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse,Boston College
Va. Tech, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UVa, Carolina, Dook, Ga. Tech, Miami
If Notre Dame stays semi independent jus move West Virginia into their spot.

I think that works out pretty nicely X. The key is that neither the SEC nor Big 10 can land both Oklahoma and Texas. That keeps the Big 10 and SEC essentially on equal footing. Texas and OU in the PAC brings that conference up, and N.D. all in with the ACC does the same. While not absolute parity in revenue it is close enough for all 4 conferences to remain competitive.

And it ought to make 10th happy!

I like that west of the Mississippi division. It's a good thing for all schools involved.

And the current 3 weak sisters are all split up. Each division is comprised of one traditionally weaker school, several contenders and at least 1 brand.

TCU as a 15th and final option is an interesting idea.

I'd still rather go to 16 and just do pods rather than 3 divisions, but I admit in that scenario it would be hard to come up with a legitimate 16th.

But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

ACC takes Notre Dame and West Virginia

SEC finishes up with TCU and(going back to Mr. SEC's list) USF

I pick USF because they are already one of the better research schools in the country, have a large enrollment, and would provide greater balance to our penetration in the state of FL. They probably wouldn't pay for themselves, but I think the content that comes with 16 is a better play than 15.

Or possibly Cincinnati...

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  TCU as a 15th and final option is an interesting idea.

I'd still rather go to 16 and just do pods rather than 3 divisions, but I admit in that scenario it would be hard to come up with a legitimate 16th.

But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

ACC takes Notre Dame and West Virginia

SEC finishes up with TCU and(going back to Mr. SEC's list) USF

I pick USF because they are already one of the better research schools in the country, have a large enrollment, and would provide greater balance to our penetration in the state of FL. They probably wouldn't pay for themselves, but I think the content that comes with 16 is a better play than 15.

Or possibly Cincinnati...

Well, the choices would be slim. Iowa State is AAU with good hoops and as good of a population as most of the Midwest states. It is contiguous with Missouri. Central Florida has the better numbers for attendance, but not for research. USF draws fewer people to games than Vanderbilt. East Carolina doesn't have the research either, but would probably draw 60,000 in the SEC. West Virginia might be an option in such limited circumstances. But the question becomes why add anyone else. If none of them can pay their own way there is no point. But if we absolutely had to take 1 I'd say Iowa State.

(02-16-2017 10:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  TCU as a 15th and final option is an interesting idea.

I'd still rather go to 16 and just do pods rather than 3 divisions, but I admit in that scenario it would be hard to come up with a legitimate 16th.

But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

ACC takes Notre Dame and West Virginia

SEC finishes up with TCU and(going back to Mr. SEC's list) USF

I pick USF because they are already one of the better research schools in the country, have a large enrollment, and would provide greater balance to our penetration in the state of FL. They probably wouldn't pay for themselves, but I think the content that comes with 16 is a better play than 15.

Or possibly Cincinnati...

Well, the choices would be slim. Iowa State is AAU with good hoops and as good of a population as most of the Midwest states. It is contiguous with Missouri. Central Florida has the better numbers for attendance, but not for research. USF draws fewer people to games than Vanderbilt. East Carolina doesn't have the research either, but would probably draw 60,000 in the SEC. West Virginia might be an option in such limited circumstances. But the question becomes why add anyone else. If none of them can pay their own way there is no point. But if we absolutely had to take 1 I'd say Iowa State.

At first thought, I would say go to battle over Kansas. TCU and Kansas is a decent combo if we're going to 16. I hesitate to go with Iowa State in this scenario because while it is contiguous with MO, it's still awfully far from the core of the league. KU isn't terribly close, but they have a national brand by comparison. Let the Big Ten worry about filling a difficult spot.

If we base it purely on revenue

2014-2015 Finance listings

Available schools in new markets:

Texas - 183M
Oklahoma - 134M
Oklahoma State - 95M
Kansas - 91M
West Virginia - 90M
Texas Tech - 79M
Kansas State - 75M
Iowa State - 75M
UConn - 72M (38% subsidy)
Cincinnati - 52M (44% subsidy)

Privates weren't included in the list, but we can assume TCU and Baylor are doing pretty well.

It should also be noted that A&M was tops on the list with 192M. Apparently, SEC membership has shot their numbers through the roof, however, some of that was probably in donations.

Most of the Big 12 isn't that bad really when it comes to revenue. Put them in a richer conference and their numbers probably go up even more and that's not including the bump in TV revenue.

Our best revenue move if we're taking 2 is obviously UT and OU, but if it's not that simple then maybe this works...

SEC takes Oklahoma and Iowa State

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston

ACC takes Notre Dame and West Virginia

There's your 7.

(02-16-2017 09:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's always viable if the PAC sells a % of its network, and dead if they don't. Let's say it does happen. I think the SEC would then show interest in T.C.U.. They put us into the demographic that we most desire. Without UT or OU, T.C.U. becomes the stand in for obtaining our objectives. It could be their golden ticket. Who else would we add? Probably nobody for a while. We might see if three division of 5 would work.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

You play one permanent rival from each division plus your division for 6 games. You rotate 1 from each of the other divisions annually and play everyone every 4 years.

With 8 conference games you now have plenty of scheduling room for 2 OOC games against P schools annually, one local G5 state school, and an outside rival whether P or G level.

I think this is a really good fall back position for the SEC should we not land either UT or OU. And I must say that if neither of them heads to the Big 10 it doesn't really matter to me as the balance between the Big 10 and SEC will remain. Neither of us gains a real advantage. Then if the Big 10 wanted to go to 15 there's always UConn.

The ACC gets N.D. all in and we're done.

In that scenario JR you could even move the PAC to 16 with ESPN getting network access (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech). Kansas (not UConn) could move to the B1G.
The onus would then be on Notre Dame to join as a full member and we would find out how much value that ESPN places on West Virginia (we could get stuck).
TCU would give the SEC a stage in DFW, which is all they need.

Without West Virginia the ACC would divide like this:
Notre Dame, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse,Boston College
Va. Tech, Wake Forest, NC State, Clemson, Florida State
UVa, Carolina, Dook, Ga. Tech, Miami
If Notre Dame stays semi independent jus move West Virginia into their spot.

I think that works out pretty nicely X. The key is that neither the SEC nor Big 10 can land both Oklahoma and Texas. That keeps the Big 10 and SEC essentially on equal footing. Texas and OU in the PAC brings that conference up, and N.D. all in with the ACC does the same. While not absolute parity in revenue it is close enough for all 4 conferences to remain competitive.

And it ought to make 10th happy!

I like that west of the Mississippi division. It's a good thing for all schools involved.

And the current 3 weak sisters are all split up. Each division is comprised of one traditionally weaker school, several contenders and at least 1 brand.

Biggest winners in the western division are Arkansas and the SEC because of Arkansas' opportunity.

(02-17-2017 05:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  TCU as a 15th and final option is an interesting idea.

I'd still rather go to 16 and just do pods rather than 3 divisions, but I admit in that scenario it would be hard to come up with a legitimate 16th.

But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

ACC takes Notre Dame and West Virginia

SEC finishes up with TCU and(going back to Mr. SEC's list) USF

I pick USF because they are already one of the better research schools in the country, have a large enrollment, and would provide greater balance to our penetration in the state of FL. They probably wouldn't pay for themselves, but I think the content that comes with 16 is a better play than 15.

Or possibly Cincinnati...

Well, the choices would be slim. Iowa State is AAU with good hoops and as good of a population as most of the Midwest states. It is contiguous with Missouri. Central Florida has the better numbers for attendance, but not for research. USF draws fewer people to games than Vanderbilt. East Carolina doesn't have the research either, but would probably draw 60,000 in the SEC. West Virginia might be an option in such limited circumstances. But the question becomes why add anyone else. If none of them can pay their own way there is no point. But if we absolutely had to take 1 I'd say Iowa State.

At first thought, I would say go to battle over Kansas. TCU and Kansas is a decent combo if we're going to 16. I hesitate to go with Iowa State in this scenario because while it is contiguous with MO, it's still awfully far from the core of the league. KU isn't terribly close, but they have a national brand by comparison. Let the Big Ten worry about filling a difficult spot.

If we base it purely on revenue

2014-2015 Finance listings

Available schools in new markets:

Texas - 183M
Oklahoma - 134M
Oklahoma State - 95M
Kansas - 91M
West Virginia - 90M
Texas Tech - 79M
Kansas State - 75M
Iowa State - 75M
UConn - 72M (38% subsidy)
Cincinnati - 52M (44% subsidy)

Privates weren't included in the list, but we can assume TCU and Baylor are doing pretty well.

It should also be noted that A&M was tops on the list with 192M. Apparently, SEC membership has shot their numbers through the roof, however, some of that was probably in donations.

Most of the Big 12 isn't that bad really when it comes to revenue. Put them in a richer conference and their numbers probably go up even more and that's not including the bump in TV revenue.

Our best revenue move if we're taking 2 is obviously UT and OU, but if it's not that simple then maybe this works...

SEC takes Oklahoma and Iowa State

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston

ACC takes Notre Dame and West Virginia

There's your 7.

Subsidy's are tricky things.
Carolina is listed as having a subsidy because the Rams Club pays every penny of scholarship costs for every athlete on campus. That money could just as easily go to something else that wouldn't impact the University's budget. The University would then have to divert some monies to the Athletic Department and our budget numbers would go up and make us look better in all of the lists posted on the internet.
But because Rams Club monies go to pay scholarships, it affords us a more favorable tax status and gives the Rams Club a "status" within the University from which the Rams Club gets benefits and influence.
Same money.....different pocket.

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

There was a significant investment in LHN facilities and equipment in Austin. LHN would repurpose as a PACN network.

PACN already has several regional versions. It's a pretty good fit.

(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

Let's say you move to 16 schools. The LHN at its zenith will hit 15 million a year. Your solution is simple and doesn't involved the networks. The other 15 schools of the PAC simply pay Texas 1 million dollar's worth of their nice bump for 7 or 8 years. Texas absorbs the rest for two reasons. 1. For many of those years they will not be at the zenith of the contract which runs until 2031. And, 2. Texas will be getting the other bump and sharing the economic burden for at least the 3 or so million they actually might lose is simply a show of good faith for a school that will never miss it.

(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

Weird to think we might add the same schools that the Big 12 did when they were trying to get back to 10, but I suppose it's possible.

If we go to 16 with those 2 then I would prefer pods...

-Texas A&M, TCU, Arkansas, Missouri
-LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama
-Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
-Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

That's a fair amount of balance and lots of rivalries preserved.

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

ACC takes Notre Dame and Cincinnati