Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,577
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 08:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:14 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC is not taking Okla much less OSU
who they moving east, Auburn or Auburn & Ala with Missouri moving west.
Va & NC are 1st on the list
SEC might be better off with VT & WV
maybe with Hous & Mia or [UCF is certainly moving into the picture]

And you know this how? In '91 when the discussions were held the path was clear. We looked West, not East. Our targets were Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State (who was independent) and looked East to one school (Clemson). There was a silent partner at the time for Texas (Oklahoma). Texas looked to the PAC, A&M couldn't shake free from Texas politics (there was a Baylor problem) Arkansas joined. ESPN didn't wan't the SEC to have total leverage over the state of Florida so the ACC (fully apprised of our offer which was looked over by a certain network) made their offer (a better one) the day before we showed up to make ours. Bobby Bowden cited an easier path to the playoffs as his reason and the rest is history. Some think Clemson only showed interest to spy, but either way a Clemson trustee told a South Carolina trustee we were looking so they applied and were accepted.

Here we are 25 years later and Arkansas is in. South Carolina took Clemson's slot. Missouri took Florida State's slot, and A&M is now in the SEC.

Who does that leave? Texas and Oklahoma.

As long as the SEC and ACC both have contracts with ESPN the SEC won't be taking an ACC school. So we continue to look West to the two best brands remaining on the table.

For the SEC to take ACC schools it would have to be after the Big 10 raided them and then we would be encouraged by ESPN to hold onto the brands they want most to keep. I give that less than a 5% chance of happening prior to 2034 which might be past the scope of my remaining years.


Since you brought up ‘91 and looking west, I’m told that with Arkansas in and the other prime expansion targets off the board that SEC feelers went out to Rice, as well. “Fix/Upgrade Rice Stadium, and we’ll sponsor Rice as #12.” Not sure whether this was before or after the SoCar application. We declined (partly out of loyalty! to SWC schools??). Curious if you’d heard any of that story.

Yes. Both Houston and Rice were kicked around as possibilities. Part of it was that we didn't necessarily want Arkansas to join alone since they were a bit of an outlier. The goal was the city of Houston. A&M was seen as the best way to get into Houston since L.S.U. had been a rival of theirs. When the Aggies got tied up with political snags there was talk about the pros and cons of Houston and Rice. Rice being a solid academic add satisfied part of the SEC presidents and Houston being more of the athletics consideration was also looked at.

What folks forget is that both were part of the SWC and therefore at that time, not deemed to be at a lower status. The SWC was considered to be a credible conference and by today's parlance a P conference. I don't think if either Houston or Rice had bitten on the offers that the SEC would have eschewed South Carolina.

What flew under the radar for a long time was that the SEC wanted to move to 16 in '91 if they could land their primary targets. If Rice or Houston had come on board I think we would still have taken South Carolina and might possibly have considered West Virginia or Virginia Tech both of whom expressed a desire to join in '91 but both of which were considered a bit too far in distance at that time to be considered.

It might have made for a fascinating deviation from the world we have today.
01-06-2018 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,403
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #62
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
Notre Dame. Big 10. No question.
01-06-2018 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,160
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
I'm really a fan of the Big Ten and SEC each transforming into 24 member conglomerates with their own conference playoff systems.

The Big Ten ends up with with Pac 12 AAU schools and maybe a few others like Kansas. The SEC pulls from the Big 12 and ACC.
01-06-2018 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,403
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #64
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 04:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm really a fan of the Big Ten and SEC each transforming into 24 member conglomerates with their own conference playoff systems.

The Big Ten ends up with with Pac 12 AAU schools and maybe a few others like Kansas. The SEC pulls from the Big 12 and ACC.

I hope that happens. It would destroy the cartel.
01-06-2018 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,577
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 05:50 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 04:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm really a fan of the Big Ten and SEC each transforming into 24 member conglomerates with their own conference playoff systems.

The Big Ten ends up with with Pac 12 AAU schools and maybe a few others like Kansas. The SEC pulls from the Big 12 and ACC.

I hope that happens. It would destroy the cartel.

If they were a cartel they would all be making about the same amount of TV revenue and nobody would be raiding the weaker conferences.
01-06-2018 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,071
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 68
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 01:20 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I apologize if this is off-topic, but this thread gave me an idea. Suppose OU and OSU were to leave for the SEC. Instead of trying to prop up what's left of Big 12 football, Texas and 3 in-state friends join the PAC as football-only affiliates. Their non-football sports remain in the Big 12, though, easing travel burdens. The Big 12 restocks on football schools but is no longer considered a power conference. For example:

Big 12
East: Cincinnati, UCF, UConn, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, ISU, Kansas, KSU, Memphis
Non-FB: Houston, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech

Plausible?

No
01-06-2018 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 948
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #67
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 06:14 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 01:20 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I apologize if this is off-topic, but this thread gave me an idea. Suppose OU and OSU were to leave for the SEC. Instead of trying to prop up what's left of Big 12 football, Texas and 3 in-state friends join the PAC as football-only affiliates. Their non-football sports remain in the Big 12, though, easing travel burdens. The Big 12 restocks on football schools but is no longer considered a power conference. For example:

Big 12
East: Cincinnati, UCF, UConn, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, ISU, Kansas, KSU, Memphis
Non-FB: Houston, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech

Plausible?

No

OK. Why not?
01-06-2018 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,071
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 68
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
We do not know what all will happen with realignment. However, personally I am convinced of the following three things:

1. Oklahoma and Texas will try to make the Big12 work--but it probably won't survive.

2. Texas will not be the first to leave...they now have the best situation in all of college football. No reason for them to leave until the Big12 starts to crumble.

3. Texas will not join the ACC in full or with a Notre Dame type deal. They will not want to be isolated and they will not place their non-football teams in a G5 conference.

In the final analysis, realignment may come to a showdown among the Big10, the PAC and the SEC.

The SEC might invite OU and OSU.

The Big might invite OU and KU....or those two plus UT and one other...Missouri maybe?

The PAC might invite the Texoma four or those four plus KU and KSU to form a six team POD. The PAC travel issues have been over blown IMO. With an eight team East Divisioin or the POD, the travel issues mostly vanish.

The question in my mind, is who makes the first move and when.

One final thought...If OU and OSU join the SEC or OU and KU join the Big and Texas does not want to move, they could go Independent in football and arrange an ACC/Notre Dame type deal with the remaining Big12 teams plus any replacements. However, I do not think that will happen.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 01:44 PM by SMUmustangs.)
01-06-2018 09:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,071
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 68
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-05-2018 06:19 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 08:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The B1G scenario for OU is unique since it's the least likely option for them (assuming more or less zero chance of the ACC)

They regain Nebraska and would probably keep the UT game because let's face it, UT would be forced to continue this game and wouldn't dare pull the "you left so we wont play you anymore" card or they'd have none of their 3 main rivals left

They could legitimately leave OSU by saying they won't take you but we can't pass up a chance to have a OK school in the CIC to bolster our chances of AAU

Hahahahaha. OU isn’t getting an AAU invite.
I went to grad school at OU and like OU.

I am not to sure about that..... there has been talk among the OU faithful that OU may gain AAU status before the GOR expires. Boren has worked very hard to improve OU's academic status. I give him credit for that.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 11:58 AM by SMUmustangs.)
01-07-2018 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 948
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #70
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 01:20 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I apologize if this is off-topic, but this thread gave me an idea. Suppose OU and OSU were to leave for the SEC. Instead of trying to prop up what's left of Big 12 football, Texas and 3 in-state friends join the PAC as football-only affiliates. Their non-football sports remain in the Big 12, though, easing travel burdens. The Big 12 restocks on football schools but is no longer considered a power conference. For example:

Big 12
East: Cincinnati, UCF, UConn, USF, West Virginia
West: Baylor, ISU, Kansas, KSU, Memphis
Non-FB: Houston, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech

Plausible?

Now that I think about it, this is still quite a strong conference. All of the members have been in "power" conferences before except UCF and Memphis, and even then you could consider the 2013 AAC to be a power conference because it was BCS AQ that year. Maybe Big 12 3.0 here would get preferential treatment over the old G5 in terms of things like the access bowl and CFP payouts.
01-07-2018 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,465
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:14 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC is not taking Okla much less OSU
who they moving east, Auburn or Auburn & Ala with Missouri moving west.
Va & NC are 1st on the list
SEC might be better off with VT & WV
maybe with Hous & Mia or [UCF is certainly moving into the picture]

And you know this how? In '91 when the discussions were held the path was clear. We looked West, not East. Our targets were Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State (who was independent) and looked East to one school (Clemson). There was a silent partner at the time for Texas (Oklahoma). Texas looked to the PAC, A&M couldn't shake free from Texas politics (there was a Baylor problem) Arkansas joined. ESPN didn't wan't the SEC to have total leverage over the state of Florida so the ACC (fully apprised of our offer which was looked over by a certain network) made their offer (a better one) the day before we showed up to make ours. Bobby Bowden cited an easier path to the playoffs as his reason and the rest is history. Some think Clemson only showed interest to spy, but either way a Clemson trustee told a South Carolina trustee we were looking so they applied and were accepted.

Here we are 25 years later and Arkansas is in. South Carolina took Clemson's slot. Missouri took Florida State's slot, and A&M is now in the SEC.

Who does that leave? Texas and Oklahoma.

As long as the SEC and ACC both have contracts with ESPN the SEC won't be taking an ACC school. So we continue to look West to the two best brands remaining on the table.

For the SEC to take ACC schools it would have to be after the Big 10 raided them and then we would be encouraged by ESPN to hold onto the brands they want most to keep. I give that less than a 5% chance of happening prior to 2034 which might be past the scope of my remaining years.


Since you brought up ‘91 and looking west, I’m told that with Arkansas in and the other prime expansion targets off the board that SEC feelers went out to Rice, as well. “Fix/Upgrade Rice Stadium, and we’ll sponsor Rice as #12.” Not sure whether this was before or after the SoCar application. We declined (partly out of loyalty! to SWC schools??). Curious if you’d heard any of that story.

Yes. Both Houston and Rice were kicked around as possibilities. Part of it was that we didn't necessarily want Arkansas to join alone since they were a bit of an outlier. The goal was the city of Houston. A&M was seen as the best way to get into Houston since L.S.U. had been a rival of theirs. When the Aggies got tied up with political snags there was talk about the pros and cons of Houston and Rice. Rice being a solid academic add satisfied part of the SEC presidents and Houston being more of the athletics consideration was also looked at.

What folks forget is that both were part of the SWC and therefore at that time, not deemed to be at a lower status. The SWC was considered to be a credible conference and by today's parlance a P conference. I don't think if either Houston or Rice had bitten on the offers that the SEC would have eschewed South Carolina.

What flew under the radar for a long time was that the SEC wanted to move to 16 in '91 if they could land their primary targets. If Rice or Houston had come on board I think we would still have taken South Carolina and might possibly have considered West Virginia or Virginia Tech both of whom expressed a desire to join in '91 but both of which were considered a bit too far in distance at that time to be considered.

It might have made for a fascinating deviation from the world we have today.
Virginia Tech is only 3.5 hours from Knoxville. Fayetteville to Oxford is 6 hours and College Station to Baton Rouge is about 5.5 hours drive. I don’t think VT was quite the candidate

Anyway, if the SEC really wanted to entice Oklahoma, Sankey should have official offers in hand for Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Nebraska. If that doesn’t make OU feel at home, nothing will.
01-07-2018 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,577
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-07-2018 09:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:14 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC is not taking Okla much less OSU
who they moving east, Auburn or Auburn & Ala with Missouri moving west.
Va & NC are 1st on the list
SEC might be better off with VT & WV
maybe with Hous & Mia or [UCF is certainly moving into the picture]

And you know this how? In '91 when the discussions were held the path was clear. We looked West, not East. Our targets were Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State (who was independent) and looked East to one school (Clemson). There was a silent partner at the time for Texas (Oklahoma). Texas looked to the PAC, A&M couldn't shake free from Texas politics (there was a Baylor problem) Arkansas joined. ESPN didn't wan't the SEC to have total leverage over the state of Florida so the ACC (fully apprised of our offer which was looked over by a certain network) made their offer (a better one) the day before we showed up to make ours. Bobby Bowden cited an easier path to the playoffs as his reason and the rest is history. Some think Clemson only showed interest to spy, but either way a Clemson trustee told a South Carolina trustee we were looking so they applied and were accepted.

Here we are 25 years later and Arkansas is in. South Carolina took Clemson's slot. Missouri took Florida State's slot, and A&M is now in the SEC.

Who does that leave? Texas and Oklahoma.

As long as the SEC and ACC both have contracts with ESPN the SEC won't be taking an ACC school. So we continue to look West to the two best brands remaining on the table.

For the SEC to take ACC schools it would have to be after the Big 10 raided them and then we would be encouraged by ESPN to hold onto the brands they want most to keep. I give that less than a 5% chance of happening prior to 2034 which might be past the scope of my remaining years.


Since you brought up ‘91 and looking west, I’m told that with Arkansas in and the other prime expansion targets off the board that SEC feelers went out to Rice, as well. “Fix/Upgrade Rice Stadium, and we’ll sponsor Rice as #12.” Not sure whether this was before or after the SoCar application. We declined (partly out of loyalty! to SWC schools??). Curious if you’d heard any of that story.

Yes. Both Houston and Rice were kicked around as possibilities. Part of it was that we didn't necessarily want Arkansas to join alone since they were a bit of an outlier. The goal was the city of Houston. A&M was seen as the best way to get into Houston since L.S.U. had been a rival of theirs. When the Aggies got tied up with political snags there was talk about the pros and cons of Houston and Rice. Rice being a solid academic add satisfied part of the SEC presidents and Houston being more of the athletics consideration was also looked at.

What folks forget is that both were part of the SWC and therefore at that time, not deemed to be at a lower status. The SWC was considered to be a credible conference and by today's parlance a P conference. I don't think if either Houston or Rice had bitten on the offers that the SEC would have eschewed South Carolina.

What flew under the radar for a long time was that the SEC wanted to move to 16 in '91 if they could land their primary targets. If Rice or Houston had come on board I think we would still have taken South Carolina and might possibly have considered West Virginia or Virginia Tech both of whom expressed a desire to join in '91 but both of which were considered a bit too far in distance at that time to be considered.

It might have made for a fascinating deviation from the world we have today.
Virginia Tech is only 3.5 hours from Knoxville. Fayetteville to Oxford is 6 hours and College Station to Baton Rouge is about 5.5 hours drive. I don’t think VT was quite the candidate

Anyway, if the SEC really wanted to entice Oklahoma, Sankey should have official offers in hand for Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Nebraska. If that doesn’t make OU feel at home, nothing will.

In '91 W.V.U. applied and the application was tabled since they, at that time, didn't offer the requisite number and kinds of sports that the SEC offered. Virginia Tech put the feelers out to the SEC in '91 and there were discussions. But when we feel that a school is too remote it's not because they are 3.5 hours from our nearest SEC school, but rather how far they are from our mean distance between schools. At that time the center of the SEC was roughly Birmingham.

Now since we've added Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri and South Carolina that mean distance is probably closer to the Alabama/ Tennessee / Mississippi corner border than it is to Birmingham.

But, I'm sure if we could go after OU/ UT / and Nebraska that OSU wouldn't be a big deal at all. However, get out the map and look at the distance to Lincoln. Nebraska is right where they should be if there is no Big 8. Nebraska would become a major outlier, unless we swapped Kansas for OSU.

I think our best shot is to make the Texa-homa offer. If Texas could claim that they headed to the SEC to secure a home for Tech that might be a good cover for their damaged ego to hide behind.
01-07-2018 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,465
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-07-2018 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2018 09:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you know this how? In '91 when the discussions were held the path was clear. We looked West, not East. Our targets were Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State (who was independent) and looked East to one school (Clemson). There was a silent partner at the time for Texas (Oklahoma). Texas looked to the PAC, A&M couldn't shake free from Texas politics (there was a Baylor problem) Arkansas joined. ESPN didn't wan't the SEC to have total leverage over the state of Florida so the ACC (fully apprised of our offer which was looked over by a certain network) made their offer (a better one) the day before we showed up to make ours. Bobby Bowden cited an easier path to the playoffs as his reason and the rest is history. Some think Clemson only showed interest to spy, but either way a Clemson trustee told a South Carolina trustee we were looking so they applied and were accepted.

Here we are 25 years later and Arkansas is in. South Carolina took Clemson's slot. Missouri took Florida State's slot, and A&M is now in the SEC.

Who does that leave? Texas and Oklahoma.

As long as the SEC and ACC both have contracts with ESPN the SEC won't be taking an ACC school. So we continue to look West to the two best brands remaining on the table.

For the SEC to take ACC schools it would have to be after the Big 10 raided them and then we would be encouraged by ESPN to hold onto the brands they want most to keep. I give that less than a 5% chance of happening prior to 2034 which might be past the scope of my remaining years.


Since you brought up ‘91 and looking west, I’m told that with Arkansas in and the other prime expansion targets off the board that SEC feelers went out to Rice, as well. “Fix/Upgrade Rice Stadium, and we’ll sponsor Rice as #12.” Not sure whether this was before or after the SoCar application. We declined (partly out of loyalty! to SWC schools??). Curious if you’d heard any of that story.

Yes. Both Houston and Rice were kicked around as possibilities. Part of it was that we didn't necessarily want Arkansas to join alone since they were a bit of an outlier. The goal was the city of Houston. A&M was seen as the best way to get into Houston since L.S.U. had been a rival of theirs. When the Aggies got tied up with political snags there was talk about the pros and cons of Houston and Rice. Rice being a solid academic add satisfied part of the SEC presidents and Houston being more of the athletics consideration was also looked at.

What folks forget is that both were part of the SWC and therefore at that time, not deemed to be at a lower status. The SWC was considered to be a credible conference and by today's parlance a P conference. I don't think if either Houston or Rice had bitten on the offers that the SEC would have eschewed South Carolina.

What flew under the radar for a long time was that the SEC wanted to move to 16 in '91 if they could land their primary targets. If Rice or Houston had come on board I think we would still have taken South Carolina and might possibly have considered West Virginia or Virginia Tech both of whom expressed a desire to join in '91 but both of which were considered a bit too far in distance at that time to be considered.

It might have made for a fascinating deviation from the world we have today.
Virginia Tech is only 3.5 hours from Knoxville. Fayetteville to Oxford is 6 hours and College Station to Baton Rouge is about 5.5 hours drive. I don’t think VT was quite the candidate

Anyway, if the SEC really wanted to entice Oklahoma, Sankey should have official offers in hand for Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Nebraska. If that doesn’t make OU feel at home, nothing will.

In '91 W.V.U. applied and the application was tabled since they, at that time, didn't offer the requisite number and kinds of sports that the SEC offered. Virginia Tech put the feelers out to the SEC in '91 and there were discussions. But when we feel that a school is too remote it's not because they are 3.5 hours from our nearest SEC school, but rather how far they are from our mean distance between schools. At that time the center of the SEC was roughly Birmingham.

Now since we've added Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri and South Carolina that mean distance is probably closer to the Alabama/ Tennessee / Mississippi corner border than it is to Birmingham.

But, I'm sure if we could go after OU/ UT / and Nebraska that OSU wouldn't be a big deal at all. However, get out the map and look at the distance to Lincoln. Nebraska is right where they should be if there is no Big 8. Nebraska would become a major outlier, unless we swapped Kansas for OSU.

I think our best shot is to make the Texa-homa offer. If Texas could claim that they headed to the SEC to secure a home for Tech that might be a good cover for their damaged ego to hide behind.

If you are adding OU and OSU then you are aggressively planting a flag in the old southern part of Big 8 country. Factor in Northwest Arkansas and Missouri, adding a Kansas School or Nebraska would probably help ease travel for schools within that region.

Further expansion could cause the need to move the center of conference operations or cause the conference tournaments to move around
01-08-2018 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,577
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-08-2018 12:17 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-07-2018 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2018 09:11 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-06-2018 08:59 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Since you brought up ‘91 and looking west, I’m told that with Arkansas in and the other prime expansion targets off the board that SEC feelers went out to Rice, as well. “Fix/Upgrade Rice Stadium, and we’ll sponsor Rice as #12.” Not sure whether this was before or after the SoCar application. We declined (partly out of loyalty! to SWC schools??). Curious if you’d heard any of that story.

Yes. Both Houston and Rice were kicked around as possibilities. Part of it was that we didn't necessarily want Arkansas to join alone since they were a bit of an outlier. The goal was the city of Houston. A&M was seen as the best way to get into Houston since L.S.U. had been a rival of theirs. When the Aggies got tied up with political snags there was talk about the pros and cons of Houston and Rice. Rice being a solid academic add satisfied part of the SEC presidents and Houston being more of the athletics consideration was also looked at.

What folks forget is that both were part of the SWC and therefore at that time, not deemed to be at a lower status. The SWC was considered to be a credible conference and by today's parlance a P conference. I don't think if either Houston or Rice had bitten on the offers that the SEC would have eschewed South Carolina.

What flew under the radar for a long time was that the SEC wanted to move to 16 in '91 if they could land their primary targets. If Rice or Houston had come on board I think we would still have taken South Carolina and might possibly have considered West Virginia or Virginia Tech both of whom expressed a desire to join in '91 but both of which were considered a bit too far in distance at that time to be considered.

It might have made for a fascinating deviation from the world we have today.
Virginia Tech is only 3.5 hours from Knoxville. Fayetteville to Oxford is 6 hours and College Station to Baton Rouge is about 5.5 hours drive. I don’t think VT was quite the candidate

Anyway, if the SEC really wanted to entice Oklahoma, Sankey should have official offers in hand for Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Nebraska. If that doesn’t make OU feel at home, nothing will.

In '91 W.V.U. applied and the application was tabled since they, at that time, didn't offer the requisite number and kinds of sports that the SEC offered. Virginia Tech put the feelers out to the SEC in '91 and there were discussions. But when we feel that a school is too remote it's not because they are 3.5 hours from our nearest SEC school, but rather how far they are from our mean distance between schools. At that time the center of the SEC was roughly Birmingham.

Now since we've added Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri and South Carolina that mean distance is probably closer to the Alabama/ Tennessee / Mississippi corner border than it is to Birmingham.

But, I'm sure if we could go after OU/ UT / and Nebraska that OSU wouldn't be a big deal at all. However, get out the map and look at the distance to Lincoln. Nebraska is right where they should be if there is no Big 8. Nebraska would become a major outlier, unless we swapped Kansas for OSU.

I think our best shot is to make the Texa-homa offer. If Texas could claim that they headed to the SEC to secure a home for Tech that might be a good cover for their damaged ego to hide behind.

If you are adding OU and OSU then you are aggressively planting a flag in the old southern part of Big 8 country. Factor in Northwest Arkansas and Missouri, adding a Kansas School or Nebraska would probably help ease travel for schools within that region.

Further expansion could cause the need to move the center of conference operations or cause the conference tournaments to move around

While Birmingham would remain the conference office, I could see other office sites like the Big 10 has, only in Dallas. With the Network in Charlotte we might see one located at the site of the LHN for the West.

I feel confident that tournaments would be moved around. The CCG might remain in Atlanta but should we move to conference semis I could see Dallas, Nashville, St.Louis, and Jacksonville being possibilities as well.
01-08-2018 12:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,593
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 56
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
I would think if conferences get bigger than 16 rules will change like semifinals for football and maybe each division hosting a basketball tournament. If the sec adds OU and Ok state than they will make a play for Texas and X to get to 18. Same thing if the big 10 added OU and KU if Texas follows OU in either case, got to believe rules of conferences change.
01-08-2018 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,577
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 827
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-08-2018 11:18 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I would think if conferences get bigger than 16 rules will change like semifinals for football and maybe each division hosting a basketball tournament. If the sec adds OU and Ok state than they will make a play for Texas and X to get to 18. Same thing if the big 10 added OU and KU if Texas follows OU in either case, got to believe rules of conferences change.

I think this is going to be true. Once we make that kind of expansion possible then having a 4 champs model for a CFP also becomes more acceptable. What conference semi finals would allow is a process by which the 4 of the best teams in a conference have a chance to earn their place in that final four.

Every football season should have 3 progressive goals. Win your division. Win your conference. Win it all. No system but the champs only system honors those objectives. The whole idea is for the best from each region to be determined on the field and then the best of the best determined the same way.

I think that approach would go a long way to healing some of the rifts and hurt that is out there now and at the same time help to keep the sport national in scope.
01-08-2018 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,160
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-08-2018 02:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-08-2018 11:18 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I would think if conferences get bigger than 16 rules will change like semifinals for football and maybe each division hosting a basketball tournament. If the sec adds OU and Ok state than they will make a play for Texas and X to get to 18. Same thing if the big 10 added OU and KU if Texas follows OU in either case, got to believe rules of conferences change.

I think this is going to be true. Once we make that kind of expansion possible then having a 4 champs model for a CFP also becomes more acceptable. What conference semi finals would allow is a process by which the 4 of the best teams in a conference have a chance to earn their place in that final four.

Every football season should have 3 progressive goals. Win your division. Win your conference. Win it all. No system but the champs only system honors those objectives. The whole idea is for the best from each region to be determined on the field and then the best of the best determined the same way.

I think that approach would go a long way to healing some of the rifts and hurt that is out there now and at the same time help to keep the sport national in scope.

This is exactly what I'd like to see--no more committee. Big 16 (or 15?) member leagues have their own playoffs and eventually yield 4 champions. Big Ten and Pac 16 meet in the Rose Bowl; ACC and SEC in the Sugar Bowl. Winners play the following week for a national crown. Every school in the P4 knows exactly what they need to do to win a national title and everything gets decided on the field.
01-08-2018 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 960
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:54 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 06:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  From a gamesmanship perspective taking the Oklahoma pair would be a huge coup for the SEC. It hems in the Big Ten in a huge way and it isolates Texas. Texas can't go north to the Big Ten--the Big Ten can't take them and all of their non-AAU companions. If Texas wants to bail on the Big 12 (and let's face it they won't be heartbroken to leave Kansas, K St, Iowa St, and WVU behind) they have to go west which is undesirable for a number of reasons or they have to grovel their way into your 18+ member southern football confederacy.

If the point is to get access to sun belt states, sans Oklahoma, Texsa and/or schools in the Southeast there is only one option left and that would be a partial merger with the PAC schools and form a wing on the West Coast. Face it, the SEACC will do whatever it takes to keep their respective fiefdoms intact and keep out competitors. Perhaps merging with the PAC becomes a better option if it means the Big 12 doesn't break apart to solidify the SEC to the point of invulnerability.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...608242&z=5

You might want to go ahead and add Utah to go with Kansas to 24. That would start the Big 12 implosion. If so then I'd say you have a great shot at landing N.D. and with them Syracuse. Now the Irish have access in conference to Stanford, U.S.C., Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse (for a New York presence) and with the access to another big prize.

By going West to the California schools and picking off Kansas you open up a track to Texas with the addition of Notre Dame. With Texas on board N.D. has good recruiting grounds in the Southwest, and with a New York, Rutgers, Maryland and Penn State they have a presence where their diaspora of alums reside. So if the SEC picks up the two Oklahomas and a second Texas school not named UT you preoccupy the SEC by having destabilized the ACC. So the SEC picks up 10 ACC schools* to go with the two Oklahoma's a second Texas school and another, perhaps W.V.U. to move to 28.

*(Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida State, Louisville) to go with (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia and Texas Tech).

So the Big 10 plus 9 PAC schools and Kansas stands at 24 and lands N.D. and say Syracuse and now has a play for Texas and rounds them out with Iowa State. Now the Big 10 stands at 28 as well.

Together the 2 new conference form an upper tier of 56 schools of what will be 84 schools. Out temporarily are Arizona State, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Kansas State, Baylor, T.C.U., Oregon State and Washington State.

So those 9 schools join the following: (Air Force, Army, Brigham Young, Boise State, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado State, Connecticut, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, Navy, Nevada Las Vegas, San Diego State, South Florida, S.M.U., Temple, Tulane, Wyoming) to form another 28 schools in a third P conference.

This completes the upper tier.

East: Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Pitt, Temple

South: Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane, Wake Forest

Central: Air Force, Baylor, Colorado State, Kansas State, S.M.U., T.C.U., Wyoming

West: Arizona State, Boise State, Brigham Young, Nevada Las Vegas, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State


There's your buffer conference. All included in the third P3 conference now have an in to the playoffs

The service academies and all of the 9 remaining original P5 are taken care of, and 16 present G5 are promoted.

It might not be perfect but it's a helluva lot better than what we have now.

Each conference has 2 regional winners (decided by a game between two divisions). Two at large bids go out as well and there is your 8 team playoff for a championship.

Any expansion out West by the Big Ten would only be in reaction to what the SEC might do with Big 12 schools. If it's to head off SEC expansion through the Big 12 they could split the PAC schools with the Big 12 but an SEC with UT and OU on board would make Western expansion almost necessary. The PAC wouldn't have any means of strengthening themselves through expansion, so a partial merger then becomes a possibility.

So an expansion with 9 from the PAC and Kansas might be the max under the scenario above.
01-08-2018 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 948
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #79
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
(01-06-2018 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  East: Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Navy, Pitt, Temple

South: Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane, Wake Forest

Central: Air Force, Baylor, Colorado State, Kansas State, S.M.U., T.C.U., Wyoming

West: Arizona State, Boise State, Brigham Young, Nevada Las Vegas, Oregon State, San Diego State, Washington State

I would think that this conference -- the "Big Mess"? 03-wink -- would prefer UNM over Wyoming.
01-09-2018 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 664
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #80
RE: Oklahoma to new conference. preferred partner
I would prefer UNM over Baylor
01-10-2018 11:23 AM
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.