Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-29-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 07:10 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  At this point I don't think this will accelerate any process, which will happen anyway, only that I have no idea what the next moves will be.

Well, the ONLY question to answer is: will the Big 12 survive?

FIFY

Maybe until 2023. What this year will do, especially if any conference gets two in, or if the Big 10 gets left out, is accelerate the process leading to 4 P conferences. Commissioners don't like to be put in the spotlight having to defend their programs. Presidents don't like acrimony from the alums. And top brands don't like having to be judged.

If we had a champs only model then Ohio State wouldn't have to be weighed and found wanting before a national audience. Ditto for Alabama. If they miss the CFP because they didn't win their own championship game the alums get it. But if they are weighed and judged before the public court by a stilted panel of jurors it's infuriating because it brings the A.D. under scrutiny for the schedule, the coach under scrutiny for a bad loss in an otherwise good year, and it brings their conference under scrutiny if they have just a couple at the top and a lot at the bottom. It also turns off the sets of whole states, if not regions for the playoffs so ultimately, and in spite of the public controversy which usually drives ratings, it is ultimately bad for the networks.

So, if it does anything it might mean that the PAC / Big 10 / SEC / and ACC all finally realize that it is in their self interest to come to an understanding about how to divide the Big 12. The biggest issue however would be say the SEC's interest in cooperating if somehow the system this year landed us two CFP slots.

But that's how I see it.

Bolded point #1

An understanding between the 4 remaining power conferences might be a good thing. There might be shuffling among those schools. I could see this:

PAC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU
B1G: Kansas, Iowa St
SEC: Texas, Texas Tech
ACC: Notre Dame, West Virginia

*Baylor left out*

Bolded point #2

There's always a chance of getting zero (just as the XII and PAC). I'm not saying the SEC would be left out but in the case the PAC, B1G, XII, and ACC have undefeated or 1-loss champions and the SEC champion has 3 losses then the SEC would be on the outside looking in. In your proposed format, the champion wouldn't necessarily need to worry about that.
11-29-2017 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-29-2017 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 07:10 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  At this point I don't think this will accelerate any process, which will happen anyway, only that I have no idea what the next moves will be.

Well, the ONLY question to answer is: will the Big 12 survive?

FIFY

Maybe until 2023. What this year will do, especially if any conference gets two in, or if the Big 10 gets left out, is accelerate the process leading to 4 P conferences. Commissioners don't like to be put in the spotlight having to defend their programs. Presidents don't like acrimony from the alums. And top brands don't like having to be judged.

If we had a champs only model then Ohio State wouldn't have to be weighed and found wanting before a national audience. Ditto for Alabama. If they miss the CFP because they didn't win their own championship game the alums get it. But if they are weighed and judged before the public court by a stilted panel of jurors it's infuriating because it brings the A.D. under scrutiny for the schedule, the coach under scrutiny for a bad loss in an otherwise good year, and it brings their conference under scrutiny if they have just a couple at the top and a lot at the bottom. It also turns off the sets of whole states, if not regions for the playoffs so ultimately, and in spite of the public controversy which usually drives ratings, it is ultimately bad for the networks.

So, if it does anything it might mean that the PAC / Big 10 / SEC / and ACC all finally realize that it is in their self interest to come to an understanding about how to divide the Big 12. The biggest issue however would be say the SEC's interest in cooperating if somehow the system this year landed us two CFP slots.

But that's how I see it.

Bolded point #1

An understanding between the 4 remaining power conferences might be a good thing. There might be shuffling among those schools. I could see this:

PAC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU
B1G: Kansas, Iowa St
SEC: Texas, Texas Tech
ACC: Notre Dame, West Virginia

*Baylor left out*

Bolded point #2

There's always a chance of getting zero (just as the XII and PAC). I'm not saying the SEC would be left out but in the case the PAC, B1G, XII, and ACC have undefeated or 1-loss champions and the SEC champion has 3 losses then the SEC would be on the outside looking in. In your proposed format, the champion wouldn't necessarily need to worry about that.

Ultimately the networks want all regions involved. It's just good for ratings. The fans want fairness and they understand that they winner of their conference should get in. The conference semis and finals should be the play in and it should all be decided on the field. And by doing it that way you don't make the regular season less meaningful, you make it more meaningful because you have to win your division to get into the conference semis. If we stick with just two divisions it still works.

I thought you division was interesting. But, I think the Big 10 would crave another football brand for the weak West division. Dividing the Big 12 is not going to be an easy matter. I do think everyone will need at least 1 brand from the Big 12 to make the move. West Virginia is the third highest revenue producer in the Big 12 and they should be able to translate that into being very competitive in the ACC. So I like that placement and agree N.D. would have to go all in.

I think what you might see is something odd between the SEC and Big 10. As I don't see the Big 10 adding Kansas and Iowa State. For the major sport that would seem like a further weakening of the B1G West. And I don't see the SEC moving without a brand and Texas and Texas Tech would be fine with us as far as branding and control of a really major state. And would Texas head west to get their buddies a landing spot? Would they be willing to move anywhere without OU?

If Texas heads to the PAC or Big 10 they will want the assurance of OU traveling with them. They simply won't risk OU heading to the SEC while they head West or North. If the SEC gains Oklahoma to go with A&M and Arkansas all of the sudden Texas is odd man out in their own region. They simply won't put themselves in that position.

That's the kind of stuff that makes this so tough.

It's also why I've talked so often about moving to 18. Lots of things open up if we look at 18 or even 20. At that number it is possible for B1G, PAC, SEC or even the ACC to make an offer that Texas might actually entertain.

I could see Texas, Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas to the PAC.

I could see Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas to the SEC.

I could see Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10.


But what I don't see is a rational and easy division of the Big 12 in a move to 16 everywhere.

But I do applaud your interesting offering on the division as it will take something out of the box to pull it off.

So West Virginia and N.D. for the ACC I can see.
I can see the SEC reluctantly agreeing to Oklahoma and O.S.U. so that OU can keep the RRR out of conference.
I can see Texas maybe feeling confident enough if they can take their Texas buddies with them to the PAC. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas State.
But that still leaves the Big 10 with a very blah addition of Iowa State and Kansas.

I think Delany balks at that and the Big 10 stays at 14.
11-29-2017 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,449
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-29-2017 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 07:10 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  At this point I don't think this will accelerate any process, which will happen anyway, only that I have no idea what the next moves will be.

Well, the ONLY question to answer is: will the Big 12 survive?

FIFY

Maybe until 2023. What this year will do, especially if any conference gets two in, or if the Big 10 gets left out, is accelerate the process leading to 4 P conferences. Commissioners don't like to be put in the spotlight having to defend their programs. Presidents don't like acrimony from the alums. And top brands don't like having to be judged.

If we had a champs only model then Ohio State wouldn't have to be weighed and found wanting before a national audience. Ditto for Alabama. If they miss the CFP because they didn't win their own championship game the alums get it. But if they are weighed and judged before the public court by a stilted panel of jurors it's infuriating because it brings the A.D. under scrutiny for the schedule, the coach under scrutiny for a bad loss in an otherwise good year, and it brings their conference under scrutiny if they have just a couple at the top and a lot at the bottom. It also turns off the sets of whole states, if not regions for the playoffs so ultimately, and in spite of the public controversy which usually drives ratings, it is ultimately bad for the networks.

So, if it does anything it might mean that the PAC / Big 10 / SEC / and ACC all finally realize that it is in their self interest to come to an understanding about how to divide the Big 12. The biggest issue however would be say the SEC's interest in cooperating if somehow the system this year landed us two CFP slots.

But that's how I see it.

Bolded point #1

An understanding between the 4 remaining power conferences might be a good thing. There might be shuffling among those schools. I could see this:

PAC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU
B1G: Kansas, Iowa St
SEC: Texas, Texas Tech
ACC: Notre Dame, West Virginia

*Baylor left out*

Bolded point #2

There's always a chance of getting zero (just as the XII and PAC). I'm not saying the SEC would be left out but in the case the PAC, B1G, XII, and ACC have undefeated or 1-loss champions and the SEC champion has 3 losses then the SEC would be on the outside looking in. In your proposed format, the champion wouldn't necessarily need to worry about that.

Ultimately the networks want all regions involved. It's just good for ratings. The fans want fairness and they understand that they winner of their conference should get in. The conference semis and finals should be the play in and it should all be decided on the field. And by doing it that way you don't make the regular season less meaningful, you make it more meaningful because you have to win your division to get into the conference semis. If we stick with just two divisions it still works.

I thought you division was interesting. But, I think the Big 10 would crave another football brand for the weak West division. Dividing the Big 12 is not going to be an easy matter. I do think everyone will need at least 1 brand from the Big 12 to make the move. West Virginia is the third highest revenue producer in the Big 12 and they should be able to translate that into being very competitive in the ACC. So I like that placement and agree N.D. would have to go all in.

I think what you might see is something odd between the SEC and Big 10. As I don't see the Big 10 adding Kansas and Iowa State. For the major sport that would seem like a further weakening of the B1G West. And I don't see the SEC moving without a brand and Texas and Texas Tech would be fine with us as far as branding and control of a really major state. And would Texas head west to get their buddies a landing spot? Would they be willing to move anywhere without OU?

If Texas heads to the PAC or Big 10 they will want the assurance of OU traveling with them. They simply won't risk OU heading to the SEC while they head West or North. If the SEC gains Oklahoma to go with A&M and Arkansas all of the sudden Texas is odd man out in their own region. They simply won't put themselves in that position.

That's the kind of stuff that makes this so tough.

It's also why I've talked so often about moving to 18. Lots of things open up if we look at 18 or even 20. At that number it is possible for B1G, PAC, SEC or even the ACC to make an offer that Texas might actually entertain.

I could see Texas, Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas to the PAC.

I could see Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas to the SEC.

I could see Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10.


But what I don't see is a rational and easy division of the Big 12 in a move to 16 everywhere.

But I do applaud your interesting offering on the division as it will take something out of the box to pull it off.

So West Virginia and N.D. for the ACC I can see.
I can see the SEC reluctantly agreeing to Oklahoma and O.S.U. so that OU can keep the RRR out of conference.
I can see Texas maybe feeling confident enough if they can take their Texas buddies with them to the PAC. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas State.
But that still leaves the Big 10 with a very blah addition of Iowa State and Kansas.

I think Delany balks at that and the Big 10 stays at 14.

If all the Big 12 loses is West Virginia, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, I don’t think Delaney adds any remains Big 12 schools and Texas saves the Big 12’s P5 status while going independent in football with a all Olympic sports in the B12.
11-29-2017 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-29-2017 08:47 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-29-2017 08:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  Well, the ONLY question to answer is: will the Big 12 survive?

FIFY

Maybe until 2023. What this year will do, especially if any conference gets two in, or if the Big 10 gets left out, is accelerate the process leading to 4 P conferences. Commissioners don't like to be put in the spotlight having to defend their programs. Presidents don't like acrimony from the alums. And top brands don't like having to be judged.

If we had a champs only model then Ohio State wouldn't have to be weighed and found wanting before a national audience. Ditto for Alabama. If they miss the CFP because they didn't win their own championship game the alums get it. But if they are weighed and judged before the public court by a stilted panel of jurors it's infuriating because it brings the A.D. under scrutiny for the schedule, the coach under scrutiny for a bad loss in an otherwise good year, and it brings their conference under scrutiny if they have just a couple at the top and a lot at the bottom. It also turns off the sets of whole states, if not regions for the playoffs so ultimately, and in spite of the public controversy which usually drives ratings, it is ultimately bad for the networks.

So, if it does anything it might mean that the PAC / Big 10 / SEC / and ACC all finally realize that it is in their self interest to come to an understanding about how to divide the Big 12. The biggest issue however would be say the SEC's interest in cooperating if somehow the system this year landed us two CFP slots.

But that's how I see it.

Bolded point #1

An understanding between the 4 remaining power conferences might be a good thing. There might be shuffling among those schools. I could see this:

PAC: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, TCU
B1G: Kansas, Iowa St
SEC: Texas, Texas Tech
ACC: Notre Dame, West Virginia

*Baylor left out*

Bolded point #2

There's always a chance of getting zero (just as the XII and PAC). I'm not saying the SEC would be left out but in the case the PAC, B1G, XII, and ACC have undefeated or 1-loss champions and the SEC champion has 3 losses then the SEC would be on the outside looking in. In your proposed format, the champion wouldn't necessarily need to worry about that.

Ultimately the networks want all regions involved. It's just good for ratings. The fans want fairness and they understand that they winner of their conference should get in. The conference semis and finals should be the play in and it should all be decided on the field. And by doing it that way you don't make the regular season less meaningful, you make it more meaningful because you have to win your division to get into the conference semis. If we stick with just two divisions it still works.

I thought you division was interesting. But, I think the Big 10 would crave another football brand for the weak West division. Dividing the Big 12 is not going to be an easy matter. I do think everyone will need at least 1 brand from the Big 12 to make the move. West Virginia is the third highest revenue producer in the Big 12 and they should be able to translate that into being very competitive in the ACC. So I like that placement and agree N.D. would have to go all in.

I think what you might see is something odd between the SEC and Big 10. As I don't see the Big 10 adding Kansas and Iowa State. For the major sport that would seem like a further weakening of the B1G West. And I don't see the SEC moving without a brand and Texas and Texas Tech would be fine with us as far as branding and control of a really major state. And would Texas head west to get their buddies a landing spot? Would they be willing to move anywhere without OU?

If Texas heads to the PAC or Big 10 they will want the assurance of OU traveling with them. They simply won't risk OU heading to the SEC while they head West or North. If the SEC gains Oklahoma to go with A&M and Arkansas all of the sudden Texas is odd man out in their own region. They simply won't put themselves in that position.

That's the kind of stuff that makes this so tough.

It's also why I've talked so often about moving to 18. Lots of things open up if we look at 18 or even 20. At that number it is possible for B1G, PAC, SEC or even the ACC to make an offer that Texas might actually entertain.

I could see Texas, Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas to the PAC.

I could see Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas to the SEC.

I could see Texas, Tech, Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10.


But what I don't see is a rational and easy division of the Big 12 in a move to 16 everywhere.

But I do applaud your interesting offering on the division as it will take something out of the box to pull it off.

So West Virginia and N.D. for the ACC I can see.
I can see the SEC reluctantly agreeing to Oklahoma and O.S.U. so that OU can keep the RRR out of conference.
I can see Texas maybe feeling confident enough if they can take their Texas buddies with them to the PAC. Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Kansas State.
But that still leaves the Big 10 with a very blah addition of Iowa State and Kansas.

I think Delany balks at that and the Big 10 stays at 14.

If all the Big 12 loses is West Virginia, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, I don’t think Delaney adds any remains Big 12 schools and Texas saves the Big 12’s P5 status while going independent in football with a all Olympic sports in the B12.

If Texas goes indy only Texas saves P5 status.
11-29-2017 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,244
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
For me, what makes Texas and Oklahoma the happiest? They would want their own division, I can see that. They want as many little brothers in their region as possible, I can see that.

Most of the chaff is in the Northern region of the conference and so I think you take very few of those in order to avoid spreading the talent and the revenue too thin.

I go back to my old "politics" theory. Texas wants to protect their in-state schools because of the shifting economy. They just so happen to have a massive local economy at their back. They've also got a Legislature with varied interests and a history of getting involved in matters like this.

If Texas had to pick one conference that they'd really want to be in then they'd probably pick the PAC. UT officials have never been terribly public, however, with their desires of one league over another. Wouldn't be smart to eliminate or alienate options, but I think primarily Texas doesn't float their desires out there because they want the best deal they can get for their regional partners. Whoever gives them the best deal will magically become the league 'they've always wanted to be a part of.'

That league probably won't be the PAC for a couple of reasons...

1. The PAC, however disadvantaged, is still pretty snobby.
2. Outside of UT, the others in their region don't seem too hung up on the PAC.

Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

It's not the most efficient and profitable for the SEC, but it checks the most boxes. The SEC gets eternal control of the state of TX and the key members of the expansion are eternally grateful. Dividing into 4 divisions makes for a more clean way of determining a conference champ. While UH isn't ready for primetime just yet, they soon will be and SEC membership will speed the process up. That and more opportunities to showcase our product in a gigantic media market will pay dividends. I think in the end, we'll be glad to have them. The league also gets a rival for Mizzou and some good basketball thrown in as well.

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas
Central: Texas A&M, Houston, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky
11-30-2017 05:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-30-2017 05:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

In the first bolded section, Texas definitely doesn't want to be seen as a follower. Perhaps we should expect a "staged begging" of some sort by the conference and Texas "begrudgingly" agreeing to join the conference. Not saying that will happen, but I could see Texas attempting to orchestrate that.

In the second bolded section, I changed Houston to TCU. I love the Cougars, but, with Texas A&M already in the conference and Houston area and TCU being a power school in DFW, I don't see Houston being a viable candidate for the SEC.

You could make divisions and yours were probably as good as it gets. I'm going to propose no divisions. Each school has 7 annual rivals and plays 3 of the other 12 each year so you'll play all 20 schools within the 4 years.
11-30-2017 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,244
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-30-2017 10:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 05:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

In the first bolded section, Texas definitely doesn't want to be seen as a follower. Perhaps we should expect a "staged begging" of some sort by the conference and Texas "begrudgingly" agreeing to join the conference. Not saying that will happen, but I could see Texas attempting to orchestrate that.

In the second bolded section, I changed Houston to TCU. I love the Cougars, but, with Texas A&M already in the conference and Houston area and TCU being a power school in DFW, I don't see Houston being a viable candidate for the SEC.

You could make divisions and yours were probably as good as it gets. I'm going to propose no divisions. Each school has 7 annual rivals and plays 3 of the other 12 each year so you'll play all 20 schools within the 4 years.

The reason I substituted Houston for TCU is because it's a state school and has been on the rise in recent years. It's not so much about the market as the combo of UT, A&M, and OU would control Dallas anyway.

The Legislature has greater power in that situation and there are apparently a lot of UH grads in the Legislature now. Funding for higher ed may be trending down and so it will be important for a state like TX to get as many of their state schools in as possible so that exposure leads to money and additional revenue on the academic side. TCU or Baylor doesn't do as much for the state as a UH addition would.

That and I think TCU could land somewhere anyway...maybe the ACC.
(This post was last modified: 11-30-2017 11:36 AM by AllTideUp.)
11-30-2017 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-30-2017 11:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 10:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 05:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

In the first bolded section, Texas definitely doesn't want to be seen as a follower. Perhaps we should expect a "staged begging" of some sort by the conference and Texas "begrudgingly" agreeing to join the conference. Not saying that will happen, but I could see Texas attempting to orchestrate that.

In the second bolded section, I changed Houston to TCU. I love the Cougars, but, with Texas A&M already in the conference and Houston area and TCU being a power school in DFW, I don't see Houston being a viable candidate for the SEC.

You could make divisions and yours were probably as good as it gets. I'm going to propose no divisions. Each school has 7 annual rivals and plays 3 of the other 12 each year so you'll play all 20 schools within the 4 years.

The reason I substituted Houston for TCU is because it's a state school and has been on the rise in recent years. It's not so much about the market as the combo of UT, A&M, and OU would control Dallas anyway.

The Legislature has greater power in that situation and there are apparently a lot of UH grads in the Legislature now. Funding for higher ed may be trending down and so it will be important for a state like TX to get as many of their state schools in as possible so that exposure leads to money and additional revenue on the academic side. TCU or Baylor doesn't do as much for the state as a UH addition would.

That and I think TCU could land somewhere anyway...maybe the ACC.

That's fair. In that case, why not a school like Iowa St instead of a 4th Texas school?
11-30-2017 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-30-2017 11:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 10:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 05:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

In the first bolded section, Texas definitely doesn't want to be seen as a follower. Perhaps we should expect a "staged begging" of some sort by the conference and Texas "begrudgingly" agreeing to join the conference. Not saying that will happen, but I could see Texas attempting to orchestrate that.

In the second bolded section, I changed Houston to TCU. I love the Cougars, but, with Texas A&M already in the conference and Houston area and TCU being a power school in DFW, I don't see Houston being a viable candidate for the SEC.

You could make divisions and yours were probably as good as it gets. I'm going to propose no divisions. Each school has 7 annual rivals and plays 3 of the other 12 each year so you'll play all 20 schools within the 4 years.

The reason I substituted Houston for TCU is because it's a state school and has been on the rise in recent years. It's not so much about the market as the combo of UT, A&M, and OU would control Dallas anyway.

The Legislature has greater power in that situation and there are apparently a lot of UH grads in the Legislature now. Funding for higher ed may be trending down and so it will be important for a state like TX to get as many of their state schools in as possible so that exposure leads to money and additional revenue on the academic side. TCU or Baylor doesn't do as much for the state as a UH addition would.

That and I think TCU could land somewhere anyway...maybe the ACC.

Houston is not in the present Big 12 for a reason. I don't think Texas is that hot on having them in. The Cougars got a little too strong for their liking back in the 70's when they were on equal footing in the old SWC. Neither Baylor nor T.C.U. pose that kind of threat. So while I totally get your reasoning, and even like the geographical breakdown of that division, I'm not sold that Texas wants to give them that kind of power again and I'm pretty danged sure the Aggies don't since they have the majority of the Houston market. I don't think however that A&M or UT see Texas Tech as a threat and they probably would be okay with the Red Raiders. And while I'm not overly excited about Iowa State they do put the SEC into a new state and with Missouri in already and with picking up Kansas that does translate into an entry to the Chicago market, not a large share, but a presence.

So if there is a need of a 6th school then Iowa State or West Virginia would probably get the look. But truly if it is just OU and Texas we are after then 18 works fine too with Tech and State. And if UT was smart they would only be interested in OU, & Kansas and wouldn't object to OSU. Why? If it were just A&M and Texas in the SEC then the whole state of Texas would prefer one of those two and the recruiting advantage in their home state would be even larger for both of them. That would translate into strength. Kansas and O.S.U. would never be a threat and Missouri would have their rival in hoops.

It is true that we can't cant sustain top flight additions without adding to the lower tier (Kansas football) and the middle tier (OSU in the SEC). But should Auburn and Alabama shift East we would truly have the kings divided. Texas and OU in the West and Alabama and 1 of (Auburn, Georgia, & Florida) on any given year to go with them in the East. Divide into 4 divisions and it's even better.
11-30-2017 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,244
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(11-30-2017 12:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 11:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 10:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 05:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

In the first bolded section, Texas definitely doesn't want to be seen as a follower. Perhaps we should expect a "staged begging" of some sort by the conference and Texas "begrudgingly" agreeing to join the conference. Not saying that will happen, but I could see Texas attempting to orchestrate that.

In the second bolded section, I changed Houston to TCU. I love the Cougars, but, with Texas A&M already in the conference and Houston area and TCU being a power school in DFW, I don't see Houston being a viable candidate for the SEC.

You could make divisions and yours were probably as good as it gets. I'm going to propose no divisions. Each school has 7 annual rivals and plays 3 of the other 12 each year so you'll play all 20 schools within the 4 years.

The reason I substituted Houston for TCU is because it's a state school and has been on the rise in recent years. It's not so much about the market as the combo of UT, A&M, and OU would control Dallas anyway.

The Legislature has greater power in that situation and there are apparently a lot of UH grads in the Legislature now. Funding for higher ed may be trending down and so it will be important for a state like TX to get as many of their state schools in as possible so that exposure leads to money and additional revenue on the academic side. TCU or Baylor doesn't do as much for the state as a UH addition would.

That and I think TCU could land somewhere anyway...maybe the ACC.

Houston is not in the present Big 12 for a reason. I don't think Texas is that hot on having them in. The Cougars got a little too strong for their liking back in the 70's when they were on equal footing in the old SWC. Neither Baylor nor T.C.U. pose that kind of threat. So while I totally get your reasoning, and even like the geographical breakdown of that division, I'm not sold that Texas wants to give them that kind of power again and I'm pretty danged sure the Aggies don't since they have the majority of the Houston market. I don't think however that A&M or UT see Texas Tech as a threat and they probably would be okay with the Red Raiders. And while I'm not overly excited about Iowa State they do put the SEC into a new state and with Missouri in already and with picking up Kansas that does translate into an entry to the Chicago market, not a large share, but a presence.

So if there is a need of a 6th school then Iowa State or West Virginia would probably get the look. But truly if it is just OU and Texas we are after then 18 works fine too with Tech and State. And if UT was smart they would only be interested in OU, & Kansas and wouldn't object to OSU. Why? If it were just A&M and Texas in the SEC then the whole state of Texas would prefer one of those two and the recruiting advantage in their home state would be even larger for both of them. That would translate into strength. Kansas and O.S.U. would never be a threat and Missouri would have their rival in hoops.

It is true that we can't cant sustain top flight additions without adding to the lower tier (Kansas football) and the middle tier (OSU in the SEC). But should Auburn and Alabama shift East we would truly have the kings divided. Texas and OU in the West and Alabama and 1 of (Auburn, Georgia, & Florida) on any given year to go with them in the East. Divide into 4 divisions and it's even better.

Iowa State is definitely the better product.

I tend to think if that 6th school is up for debate then the league will more or less defer to what UT/OU wants. At that point, there won't be much to quibble over. I can see UT not wanting Houston for the very reasons you laid out, but I can also see TX politicians sticking their nose in it.

I don't know. I get the feeling we're going to 20 just so we can seal the deal on everything we and ESPN could want, but outside of UT, OU, and KU I'm not sure what ESPN really wants.
12-01-2017 01:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(12-01-2017 01:22 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 12:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 11:34 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 10:52 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(11-30-2017 05:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which brings me to the "plan." Oklahoma would take an SEC invite probably for a lot of reason, but certainly in order to secure Oklahoma State. Texas is getting a little overshadowed by A&M now so there's significant motivation for UT to follow. Texas probably doesn't want to be seen as following A&M though.

The confluence of all of these priorities is this...

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

In the first bolded section, Texas definitely doesn't want to be seen as a follower. Perhaps we should expect a "staged begging" of some sort by the conference and Texas "begrudgingly" agreeing to join the conference. Not saying that will happen, but I could see Texas attempting to orchestrate that.

In the second bolded section, I changed Houston to TCU. I love the Cougars, but, with Texas A&M already in the conference and Houston area and TCU being a power school in DFW, I don't see Houston being a viable candidate for the SEC.

You could make divisions and yours were probably as good as it gets. I'm going to propose no divisions. Each school has 7 annual rivals and plays 3 of the other 12 each year so you'll play all 20 schools within the 4 years.

The reason I substituted Houston for TCU is because it's a state school and has been on the rise in recent years. It's not so much about the market as the combo of UT, A&M, and OU would control Dallas anyway.

The Legislature has greater power in that situation and there are apparently a lot of UH grads in the Legislature now. Funding for higher ed may be trending down and so it will be important for a state like TX to get as many of their state schools in as possible so that exposure leads to money and additional revenue on the academic side. TCU or Baylor doesn't do as much for the state as a UH addition would.

That and I think TCU could land somewhere anyway...maybe the ACC.

Houston is not in the present Big 12 for a reason. I don't think Texas is that hot on having them in. The Cougars got a little too strong for their liking back in the 70's when they were on equal footing in the old SWC. Neither Baylor nor T.C.U. pose that kind of threat. So while I totally get your reasoning, and even like the geographical breakdown of that division, I'm not sold that Texas wants to give them that kind of power again and I'm pretty danged sure the Aggies don't since they have the majority of the Houston market. I don't think however that A&M or UT see Texas Tech as a threat and they probably would be okay with the Red Raiders. And while I'm not overly excited about Iowa State they do put the SEC into a new state and with Missouri in already and with picking up Kansas that does translate into an entry to the Chicago market, not a large share, but a presence.

So if there is a need of a 6th school then Iowa State or West Virginia would probably get the look. But truly if it is just OU and Texas we are after then 18 works fine too with Tech and State. And if UT was smart they would only be interested in OU, & Kansas and wouldn't object to OSU. Why? If it were just A&M and Texas in the SEC then the whole state of Texas would prefer one of those two and the recruiting advantage in their home state would be even larger for both of them. That would translate into strength. Kansas and O.S.U. would never be a threat and Missouri would have their rival in hoops.

It is true that we can't cant sustain top flight additions without adding to the lower tier (Kansas football) and the middle tier (OSU in the SEC). But should Auburn and Alabama shift East we would truly have the kings divided. Texas and OU in the West and Alabama and 1 of (Auburn, Georgia, & Florida) on any given year to go with them in the East. Divide into 4 divisions and it's even better.

Iowa State is definitely the better product.

I tend to think if that 6th school is up for debate then the league will more or less defer to what UT/OU wants. At that point, there won't be much to quibble over. I can see UT not wanting Houston for the very reasons you laid out, but I can also see TX politicians sticking their nose in it.

I don't know. I get the feeling we're going to 20 just so we can seal the deal on everything we and ESPN could want, but outside of UT, OU, and KU I'm not sure what ESPN really wants.

Notre Dame in Full for the ACC and to hold onto a piece of the Big 10. That's about it.
12-01-2017 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".
01-04-2018 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

Perhaps. I wonder what Texas and Oklahoma would honestly value most between money, competitiveness, academics, rivals, and geography. The SEC offers more money, good geography, and on par academics. There wouldn’t be many rivals and they might struggle initially with the weekly football strength. They would do well in SEC basketball.
01-05-2018 12:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-05-2018 12:09 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

Perhaps. I wonder what Texas and Oklahoma would honestly value most between money, competitiveness, academics, rivals, and geography. The SEC offers more money, good geography, and on par academics. There wouldn’t be many rivals and they might struggle initially with the weekly football strength. They would do well in SEC basketball.

They would have the rivals they bring with them and Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Missouri and L.S.U. while not a rival would be convenient travel wise and somewhat familiar. The basketball in the SEC this year is projected to put 7 in the tournament. Even if it winds up being 6 that's doubling our recent output. But yeah, they would do well in basketball here.

I think the bigger issues are the minor sports. Swimming & Diving and Track and Field are already familiar foes to them. Baseball and Softball would fit perfectly into the SEC. And women's gymnastics is a big issue too for Oklahoma. And with SEC volleyball on the rise that works too. Wrestling is the only item that would lack with the SEC and there are other ways to schedule that sport.
01-05-2018 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-05-2018 12:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 12:09 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

Perhaps. I wonder what Texas and Oklahoma would honestly value most between money, competitiveness, academics, rivals, and geography. The SEC offers more money, good geography, and on par academics. There wouldn’t be many rivals and they might struggle initially with the weekly football strength. They would do well in SEC basketball.

They would have the rivals they bring with them and Arkansas, Texas A&M, and Missouri and L.S.U. while not a rival would be convenient travel wise and somewhat familiar. The basketball in the SEC this year is projected to put 7 in the tournament. Even if it winds up being 6 that's doubling our recent output. But yeah, they would do well in basketball here.

I think the bigger issues are the minor sports. Swimming & Diving and Track and Field are already familiar foes to them. Baseball and Softball would fit perfectly into the SEC. And women's gymnastics is a big issue too for Oklahoma. And with SEC volleyball on the rise that works too. Wrestling is the only item that would lack with the SEC and there are other ways to schedule that sport.

The minor sports are important but wouldn’t break a possible deal. Texas’ men’s athletics match perfectly with the SEC and the women’s does mostly (no equestrian or gymnastics which aren’t fully participated anyway.) Texas has women’s rowing but maintaining XII rowing association wouldn’t be an issue - Alabama and Tennessee are associates in the sport. Same goes for Oklahoma rowing. Oklahoma wrestling is big deal and they’ll be able to keep XII association, I’m sure.

Texas baseball, Oklahoma gymnastics, Oklahoma softball, and others from time to time are consistent title contenders that would fit well and jump right into the top of the conference.
01-05-2018 01:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,281
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 791
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
The final AP poll is out and Alabama is #1, Georgia is #2, and Auburn is #10. Oklahoma was #3, Clemson #4, Ohio State #5, UCF #6.

This year's results will most certainly create some buzz about how best to do this in the future.

Until then, SEC, SEC, SEC!
01-09-2018 03:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,454
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 177
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.
01-09-2018 08:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,449
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?
01-09-2018 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.
01-09-2018 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,449
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Could This Year's CFP Speed Up Realignment?
(01-09-2018 02:08 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 01:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 08:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that Georgia is playing Alabama for all of the marbles, I think the answer to the OP is "Yes!".

The secret meetings are already being planned in Chicago.
Being left out, after sneaking Ohio State in previously, must not be sitting well with the PTB of the B1G.
I think those guys will chomp down hard on their cigars and condescend to include Oklahoma as a top priority for expansion. The B1G must have better football in the western portion of their conference...Wisconsin can't prop up the west all by themselves.

Or the B1G follows in the SEC’s footsteps when Sankey met with the SEC AD’s and they worked out plan to improve their abysmal basketball conference to what it’s improved to today.

The B1G already added Nebraska to “fix” the West. If they add just Oklahoma to the west, how can the B1G hope OU won’t dip considerably like NU did?

I'm not quite sure the reasoning behind the addition of Nebraska was to balance the East and West. Nebraska, at the time, had come off several decades of consistent dominance. The B1G also went to the Leaders/Legends format which kind of negates any idea that the idea was always for an East/West format. Also, at the time, a conference needed 12 schools for a CCG.

If I were the B1G during that time period, I would've sent a mass offer to Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. There was a report that the B1G received a package offer from a combination of Iowa St, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M.

Had the B1G gone my way with N/K/M/O/T, they'd look like:

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
East: Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St

Fairly balanced with a bunch of state flagships.

Texas A&M still heads to the SEC. Colorado still heads to the PAC with Utah. Perhaps Oklahoma St goes with Texas A&M instead of Missouri? Who knows. The SEC said a lot by taking Missouri and made the Tigers feel welcomed in a way the B1G was idiotic not to do. It also gave the SEC stronger borders with Oklahoma football and Kansas basketball.

I doubt the SEC would've taken Missouri for the sole sake of spiting the B1G, but sometimes realignment moves are more like chess - you might not make the best move in the world but you're setting yourself up for the win.

The idea was you make improvements within before having to bring in outside reinforcements.

Your mentioned group of Big 12 schools to the B1G was a counter solution, that was eventually published by Nebraska reporters once they had enough confirmed sources to publish the story, to find homes for the vast majority of schools that would have been left out of the Texas led PAC 16 super conference merger. There were conversations, but the seriousness can not be accurately factored in as we only hear one side of this story.
01-09-2018 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.