(07-12-2018 05:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Texas and Oklahoma were to go together as a pair to either the B1G or the SEC it would create such an imbalance in the power structure it would eventually destroy either conference.
The same would hold true for the PAC with the exception, that the PAC would actually benefit by having the power resting with folks that actually cared about big time football.
So there is the delima:
If Texas and Oklahoma are to stay together it would either be in the PAC or in the Big 12 (where we can assume at reduced income, since the networks weren't going to pay "full price" for any of their proposed expansion candidates).
The PAC wouldn't take Oklahoma without Texas.
Texas supposedly won't go to the SEC.
Oklahoma academics in the B1G?
Kansas in the SEC?
If Oklahoma goes to the B1G with Kansas and much of the Big 12 then joins the American. Can Texas join that league as a "partial" and still have enough strength of schedule to be considered for the playoffs?
A Gordian Knot.

Texas and Oklahoma going to either the SEC or Big 10 would not destroy those two conferences. But it would lead to the destruction of the others. Even if they split those two the revenue gap would be so massive between the SEC/B1G and the other 2 that the gravity of their revenue would pull the best of the other two in and we would consolidate into 2 leagues of anywhere from 48 to 56 schools.

In the end if OU and UT move it will be to a conference that provides them with the least overall change. Their business models for athletics are too successful to risk it otherwise. So the fit of the sports selection, the ease of travel, and the provision of familiar faces on the schedule will the recipe that wins them.

The boys in Birmingham would't know what hit 'em. To add two schools with more money than the majority of your conference is a recipe for disaster.
Oh! sure the SEC would have the most money and would work fine until the power struggles started. When Tennessee is relegated to third world status and Florida and Georgia are no better than England and France at the bargaining table who is going to care that they have a few more million dollars to spend.
You had better hope that you don't get what you wished for because the last thing that you want to hear is me telling you "I told you so"!

(07-12-2018 07:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Texas and Oklahoma were to go together as a pair to either the B1G or the SEC it would create such an imbalance in the power structure it would eventually destroy either conference.
The same would hold true for the PAC with the exception, that the PAC would actually benefit by having the power resting with folks that actually cared about big time football.
So there is the delima:
If Texas and Oklahoma are to stay together it would either be in the PAC or in the Big 12 (where we can assume at reduced income, since the networks weren't going to pay "full price" for any of their proposed expansion candidates).
The PAC wouldn't take Oklahoma without Texas.
Texas supposedly won't go to the SEC.
Oklahoma academics in the B1G?
Kansas in the SEC?
If Oklahoma goes to the B1G with Kansas and much of the Big 12 then joins the American. Can Texas join that league as a "partial" and still have enough strength of schedule to be considered for the playoffs?
A Gordian Knot.

Texas and Oklahoma going to either the SEC or Big 10 would not destroy those two conferences. But it would lead to the destruction of the others. Even if they split those two the revenue gap would be so massive between the SEC/B1G and the other 2 that the gravity of their revenue would pull the best of the other two in and we would consolidate into 2 leagues of anywhere from 48 to 56 schools.

In the end if OU and UT move it will be to a conference that provides them with the least overall change. Their business models for athletics are too successful to risk it otherwise. So the fit of the sports selection, the ease of travel, and the provision of familiar faces on the schedule will the recipe that wins them.

The boys in Birmingham would't know what hit 'em. To add two schools with more money than the majority of your conference is a recipe for disaster.
Oh! sure the SEC would have the most money and would work fine until the power struggles started. When Tennessee is relegated to third world status and Florida and Georgia are no better than England and France at the bargaining table who is going to care that they have a few more million dollars to spend.
You had better hope that you don't get what you wished for because the last thing that you want to hear is me telling you "I told you so"!

Only Texas has more money than any school in the SEC and then not by much. A&M has caught up quite a bit. And in the SEC they would have 2 votes between them not enough to alter one single outcome. But compared to the rarefied hubris of the Baby Blue Wine and Cheese Pinky raisers the braggadocious manner of Longhorns fans would be quite welcomed. At least they have what they need to back up the brag off the field. I'm not so sure about on it. And I don't think they've offered any bogus curriculum with fraudulent grades. So they would be fine and so would we. You guys on the other hand would have to hope that the Big 10 found enough value in your sports to put up with you. I'll pray for Michigan and Ohio State if it ever comes to that!

If Texas and OU go to either the B1G or the SEC as a pair, I don't think the issue is them destroying their home conference... the issue is that conference destroying ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL. As JR stated, the revenue disparity would be so great that the 65 or so schools which are currently playing for the national championship every year (in theory at least) would be whittled down to just 20 teams (or, if one goes to the B1G and the other to the SEC), at most 40 teams. That's a minor league NFL and nothing like the college football we know and love... no minor league pro football has ever worked because fans want the real thing. College is currently built on a regional model which doesn't have to compete with the NFL head-on -- but if you were to eliminate 1/2 to 2/3 of the teams in one fell swoop, I suspect viewership would plummet as fans of disenfranchised teams would move their loyalties not to the conferences which killed their teams, but to the NFL.

(07-12-2018 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Texas and Oklahoma were to go together as a pair to either the B1G or the SEC it would create such an imbalance in the power structure it would eventually destroy either conference.
The same would hold true for the PAC with the exception, that the PAC would actually benefit by having the power resting with folks that actually cared about big time football.
So there is the delima:
If Texas and Oklahoma are to stay together it would either be in the PAC or in the Big 12 (where we can assume at reduced income, since the networks weren't going to pay "full price" for any of their proposed expansion candidates).
The PAC wouldn't take Oklahoma without Texas.
Texas supposedly won't go to the SEC.
Oklahoma academics in the B1G?
Kansas in the SEC?
If Oklahoma goes to the B1G with Kansas and much of the Big 12 then joins the American. Can Texas join that league as a "partial" and still have enough strength of schedule to be considered for the playoffs?
A Gordian Knot.

Texas and Oklahoma going to either the SEC or Big 10 would not destroy those two conferences. But it would lead to the destruction of the others. Even if they split those two the revenue gap would be so massive between the SEC/B1G and the other 2 that the gravity of their revenue would pull the best of the other two in and we would consolidate into 2 leagues of anywhere from 48 to 56 schools.

In the end if OU and UT move it will be to a conference that provides them with the least overall change. Their business models for athletics are too successful to risk it otherwise. So the fit of the sports selection, the ease of travel, and the provision of familiar faces on the schedule will the recipe that wins them.

The boys in Birmingham would't know what hit 'em. To add two schools with more money than the majority of your conference is a recipe for disaster.
Oh! sure the SEC would have the most money and would work fine until the power struggles started. When Tennessee is relegated to third world status and Florida and Georgia are no better than England and France at the bargaining table who is going to care that they have a few more million dollars to spend.
You had better hope that you don't get what you wished for because the last thing that you want to hear is me telling you "I told you so"!

Only Texas has more money than any school in the SEC and then not by much. A&M has caught up quite a bit. And in the SEC they would have 2 votes between them not enough to alter one single outcome. But compared to the rarefied hubris of the Baby Blue Wine and Cheese Pinky raisers the braggadocious manner of Longhorns fans would be quite welcomed. At least they have what they need to back up the brag off the field. I'm not so sure about on it. And I don't think they've offered any bogus curriculum with fraudulent grades. So they would be fine and so would we. You guys on the other hand would have to hope that the Big 10 found enough value in your sports to put up with you. I'll pray for Michigan and Ohio State if it ever comes to that!

That is the one scenario where I actually foresee Florida leaving the SEC.
With Texas and Oklahoma shifting so much attention to the west those old bull gators are going to start listening to what the B1G has to offer, and you're right the B1G will be happy to welcome UVa, Georgia Tech, Florida and Carolina. BTW you would be welcome to the 'noles then.

(07-12-2018 12:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  If Texas and Oklahoma were to go together as a pair to either the B1G or the SEC it would create such an imbalance in the power structure it would eventually destroy either conference.
The same would hold true for the PAC with the exception, that the PAC would actually benefit by having the power resting with folks that actually cared about big time football.
So there is the delima:
If Texas and Oklahoma are to stay together it would either be in the PAC or in the Big 12 (where we can assume at reduced income, since the networks weren't going to pay "full price" for any of their proposed expansion candidates).
The PAC wouldn't take Oklahoma without Texas.
Texas supposedly won't go to the SEC.
Oklahoma academics in the B1G?
Kansas in the SEC?
If Oklahoma goes to the B1G with Kansas and much of the Big 12 then joins the American. Can Texas join that league as a "partial" and still have enough strength of schedule to be considered for the playoffs?
A Gordian Knot.

Texas and Oklahoma going to either the SEC or Big 10 would not destroy those two conferences. But it would lead to the destruction of the others. Even if they split those two the revenue gap would be so massive between the SEC/B1G and the other 2 that the gravity of their revenue would pull the best of the other two in and we would consolidate into 2 leagues of anywhere from 48 to 56 schools.

In the end if OU and UT move it will be to a conference that provides them with the least overall change. Their business models for athletics are too successful to risk it otherwise. So the fit of the sports selection, the ease of travel, and the provision of familiar faces on the schedule will the recipe that wins them.

The boys in Birmingham would't know what hit 'em. To add two schools with more money than the majority of your conference is a recipe for disaster.
Oh! sure the SEC would have the most money and would work fine until the power struggles started. When Tennessee is relegated to third world status and Florida and Georgia are no better than England and France at the bargaining table who is going to care that they have a few more million dollars to spend.
You had better hope that you don't get what you wished for because the last thing that you want to hear is me telling you "I told you so"!

Only Texas has more money than any school in the SEC and then not by much. A&M has caught up quite a bit. And in the SEC they would have 2 votes between them not enough to alter one single outcome. But compared to the rarefied hubris of the Baby Blue Wine and Cheese Pinky raisers the braggadocious manner of Longhorns fans would be quite welcomed. At least they have what they need to back up the brag off the field. I'm not so sure about on it. And I don't think they've offered any bogus curriculum with fraudulent grades. So they would be fine and so would we. You guys on the other hand would have to hope that the Big 10 found enough value in your sports to put up with you. I'll pray for Michigan and Ohio State if it ever comes to that!

That is the one scenario where I actually foresee Florida leaving the SEC.
With Texas and Oklahoma shifting so much attention to the west those old bull gators are going to start listening to what the B1G has to offer, and you're right the B1G will be happy to welcome UVa, Georgia Tech, Florida and Carolina. BTW you would be welcome to the 'noles then.

UT and OU joining the SEC would shift Mizzou to the west, and Bama and Auburn to the east division. A division with Bama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia is not going to lack for attention from media or fans; in fact it would be more attractive to Florida and Georgia than the division they have now (of course it would also be more difficult for football).

But I can't see OU being allowed to make a move that would drop Ok St into the AAC or CUSA. At least not while Boone Pickens is still alive and spreading his money around.

(07-12-2018 03:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma going to either the SEC or Big 10 would not destroy those two conferences. But it would lead to the destruction of the others. Even if they split those two the revenue gap would be so massive between the SEC/B1G and the other 2 that the gravity of their revenue would pull the best of the other two in and we would consolidate into 2 leagues of anywhere from 48 to 56 schools.

In the end if OU and UT move it will be to a conference that provides them with the least overall change. Their business models for athletics are too successful to risk it otherwise. So the fit of the sports selection, the ease of travel, and the provision of familiar faces on the schedule will the recipe that wins them.

The boys in Birmingham would't know what hit 'em. To add two schools with more money than the majority of your conference is a recipe for disaster.
Oh! sure the SEC would have the most money and would work fine until the power struggles started. When Tennessee is relegated to third world status and Florida and Georgia are no better than England and France at the bargaining table who is going to care that they have a few more million dollars to spend.
You had better hope that you don't get what you wished for because the last thing that you want to hear is me telling you "I told you so"!

Only Texas has more money than any school in the SEC and then not by much. A&M has caught up quite a bit. And in the SEC they would have 2 votes between them not enough to alter one single outcome. But compared to the rarefied hubris of the Baby Blue Wine and Cheese Pinky raisers the braggadocious manner of Longhorns fans would be quite welcomed. At least they have what they need to back up the brag off the field. I'm not so sure about on it. And I don't think they've offered any bogus curriculum with fraudulent grades. So they would be fine and so would we. You guys on the other hand would have to hope that the Big 10 found enough value in your sports to put up with you. I'll pray for Michigan and Ohio State if it ever comes to that!

That is the one scenario where I actually foresee Florida leaving the SEC.
With Texas and Oklahoma shifting so much attention to the west those old bull gators are going to start listening to what the B1G has to offer, and you're right the B1G will be happy to welcome UVa, Georgia Tech, Florida and Carolina. BTW you would be welcome to the 'noles then.

UT and OU joining the SEC would shift Mizzou to the west, and Bama and Auburn to the east division. A division with Bama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia is not going to lack for attention from media or fans; in fact it would be more attractive to Florida and Georgia than the division they have now (of course it would also be more difficult for football).

But I can't see OU being allowed to make a move that would drop Ok St into the AAC or CUSA. At least not while Boone Pickens is still alive and spreading his money around.

They won't be. That's why if the Big 12 is cracked again the SEC will have to do it and do it by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair. While not optimal it puts the SEC in the position of not ever really being threatened economically by realignment moves other conferences could make. And if we wanted to grow larger than 16 there would only be one school we would take, Texas, and with them either Tech or another partner of their choosing.

(07-12-2018 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:15 AM)XLance Wrote:  
The boys in Birmingham would't know what hit 'em. To add two schools with more money than the majority of your conference is a recipe for disaster.
Oh! sure the SEC would have the most money and would work fine until the power struggles started. When Tennessee is relegated to third world status and Florida and Georgia are no better than England and France at the bargaining table who is going to care that they have a few more million dollars to spend.
You had better hope that you don't get what you wished for because the last thing that you want to hear is me telling you "I told you so"!

Only Texas has more money than any school in the SEC and then not by much. A&M has caught up quite a bit. And in the SEC they would have 2 votes between them not enough to alter one single outcome. But compared to the rarefied hubris of the Baby Blue Wine and Cheese Pinky raisers the braggadocious manner of Longhorns fans would be quite welcomed. At least they have what they need to back up the brag off the field. I'm not so sure about on it. And I don't think they've offered any bogus curriculum with fraudulent grades. So they would be fine and so would we. You guys on the other hand would have to hope that the Big 10 found enough value in your sports to put up with you. I'll pray for Michigan and Ohio State if it ever comes to that!

That is the one scenario where I actually foresee Florida leaving the SEC.
With Texas and Oklahoma shifting so much attention to the west those old bull gators are going to start listening to what the B1G has to offer, and you're right the B1G will be happy to welcome UVa, Georgia Tech, Florida and Carolina. BTW you would be welcome to the 'noles then.

UT and OU joining the SEC would shift Mizzou to the west, and Bama and Auburn to the east division. A division with Bama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia is not going to lack for attention from media or fans; in fact it would be more attractive to Florida and Georgia than the division they have now (of course it would also be more difficult for football).

But I can't see OU being allowed to make a move that would drop Ok St into the AAC or CUSA. At least not while Boone Pickens is still alive and spreading his money around.

They won't be. That's why if the Big 12 is cracked again the SEC will have to do it and do it by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair. While not optimal it puts the SEC in the position of not ever really being threatened economically by realignment moves other conferences could make. And if we wanted to grow larger than 16 there would only be one school we would take, Texas, and with them either Tech or another partner of their choosing.

The first choice for the SEC, or the Pac-12, or the Big Ten, is to have Texas in their conference. Their second choice is for Texas to stay where they are so that the other conferences don't get the Horns.

The risk of adding OU and Ok St is that it makes it very likely that Texas would also leave the Big 12, and if the SEC doesn't get UT in the same deal, then another conference will get them. On the other hand, the SEC might think that the Pac-12 with UT isn't even close to being the same threat as the Big Ten with UT, so as long as UT doesn't go to the Big Ten they won't be too concerned.

(07-12-2018 04:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Only Texas has more money than any school in the SEC and then not by much. A&M has caught up quite a bit. And in the SEC they would have 2 votes between them not enough to alter one single outcome. But compared to the rarefied hubris of the Baby Blue Wine and Cheese Pinky raisers the braggadocious manner of Longhorns fans would be quite welcomed. At least they have what they need to back up the brag off the field. I'm not so sure about on it. And I don't think they've offered any bogus curriculum with fraudulent grades. So they would be fine and so would we. You guys on the other hand would have to hope that the Big 10 found enough value in your sports to put up with you. I'll pray for Michigan and Ohio State if it ever comes to that!

That is the one scenario where I actually foresee Florida leaving the SEC.
With Texas and Oklahoma shifting so much attention to the west those old bull gators are going to start listening to what the B1G has to offer, and you're right the B1G will be happy to welcome UVa, Georgia Tech, Florida and Carolina. BTW you would be welcome to the 'noles then.

UT and OU joining the SEC would shift Mizzou to the west, and Bama and Auburn to the east division. A division with Bama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia is not going to lack for attention from media or fans; in fact it would be more attractive to Florida and Georgia than the division they have now (of course it would also be more difficult for football).

But I can't see OU being allowed to make a move that would drop Ok St into the AAC or CUSA. At least not while Boone Pickens is still alive and spreading his money around.

They won't be. That's why if the Big 12 is cracked again the SEC will have to do it and do it by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair. While not optimal it puts the SEC in the position of not ever really being threatened economically by realignment moves other conferences could make. And if we wanted to grow larger than 16 there would only be one school we would take, Texas, and with them either Tech or another partner of their choosing.

The first choice for the SEC, or the Pac-12, or the Big Ten, is to have Texas in their conference. Their second choice is for Texas to stay where they are so that the other conferences don't get the Horns.

The risk of adding OU and Ok St is that it makes it very likely that Texas would also leave the Big 12, and if the SEC doesn't get UT in the same deal, then another conference will get them. On the other hand, the SEC might think that the Pac-12 with UT isn't even close to being the same threat as the Big Ten with UT, so as long as UT doesn't go to the Big Ten they won't be too concerned.

That's exactly our line of thinking. Let's say we did take OU and OSU. If so then Kansas doesn't hold enough value for the Big 10 to add them. So the Big 10 makes the only play that is left and tries for Texas and Kansas. The only thing hampering them with this scenario is the same thing that hampered them with Oklahoma, they can't take the 2nd state school. The PAC can. So Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State become a group that might make the PAC a possibility. If Kansas State isn't that appealing then Iowa State is still there for that grouping. Three AAU's and Texas Tech as the price for it is probably very doable.

The SEC wouldn't be bent out of shape because OU gives us the edge in branding we were looking for and the two Oklahoma schools both dip into the DFW market which with Arkansas and A&M already in the house gives us that market.

Where Texas goes, even to the Big 10, doesn't bother us as much because with Oklahoma and A&M we have enough branding in the Texas/Oklahoma region for it not to affect our ad rates there.

But, if UT look around and sees all 3 of their top rivals in the SEC (A&M, Arkansas, & Oklahoma) and they knuckle under for the sake of the home ticket book and want to join then Tech or Kansas to finish it out really meshes well with what we are doing and the added value puts us out of reach.

So getting OU is our key to succeeding in the West. Oklahoma State is the cost of that move. Then our initial objectives are met with regard to DFW, and in sustaining our valuation for product in that region. Anything else that happens at that point that is favorable is gravy, and anything that strengthened our chief rival the Big 10 wouldn't really hurt us as they would be catching back up to us.

(07-12-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  That is the one scenario where I actually foresee Florida leaving the SEC.
With Texas and Oklahoma shifting so much attention to the west those old bull gators are going to start listening to what the B1G has to offer, and you're right the B1G will be happy to welcome UVa, Georgia Tech, Florida and Carolina. BTW you would be welcome to the 'noles then.

UT and OU joining the SEC would shift Mizzou to the west, and Bama and Auburn to the east division. A division with Bama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia is not going to lack for attention from media or fans; in fact it would be more attractive to Florida and Georgia than the division they have now (of course it would also be more difficult for football).

But I can't see OU being allowed to make a move that would drop Ok St into the AAC or CUSA. At least not while Boone Pickens is still alive and spreading his money around.

They won't be. That's why if the Big 12 is cracked again the SEC will have to do it and do it by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair. While not optimal it puts the SEC in the position of not ever really being threatened economically by realignment moves other conferences could make. And if we wanted to grow larger than 16 there would only be one school we would take, Texas, and with them either Tech or another partner of their choosing.

The first choice for the SEC, or the Pac-12, or the Big Ten, is to have Texas in their conference. Their second choice is for Texas to stay where they are so that the other conferences don't get the Horns.

The risk of adding OU and Ok St is that it makes it very likely that Texas would also leave the Big 12, and if the SEC doesn't get UT in the same deal, then another conference will get them. On the other hand, the SEC might think that the Pac-12 with UT isn't even close to being the same threat as the Big Ten with UT, so as long as UT doesn't go to the Big Ten they won't be too concerned.

That's exactly our line of thinking. Let's say we did take OU and OSU. If so then Kansas doesn't hold enough value for the Big 10 to add them. So the Big 10 makes the only play that is left and tries for Texas and Kansas. The only thing hampering them with this scenario is the same thing that hampered them with Oklahoma, they can't take the 2nd state school. The PAC can. So Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State become a group that might make the PAC a possibility. If Kansas State isn't that appealing then Iowa State is still there for that grouping. Three AAU's and Texas Tech as the price for it is probably very doable.

The SEC wouldn't be bent out of shape because OU gives us the edge in branding we were looking for and the two Oklahoma schools both dip into the DFW market which with Arkansas and A&M already in the house gives us that market.

Where Texas goes, even to the Big 10, doesn't bother us as much because with Oklahoma and A&M we have enough branding in the Texas/Oklahoma region for it not to affect our ad rates there.

But, if UT look around and sees all 3 of their top rivals in the SEC (A&M, Arkansas, & Oklahoma) and they knuckle under for the sake of the home ticket book and want to join then Tech or Kansas to finish it out really meshes well with what we are doing and the added value puts us out of reach.

So getting OU is our key to succeeding in the West. Oklahoma State is the cost of that move. Then our initial objectives are met with regard to DFW, and in sustaining our valuation for product in that region. Anything else that happens at that point that is favorable is gravy, and anything that strengthened our chief rival the Big 10 wouldn't really hurt us as they would be catching back up to us.

Yeah, the one advantage the Pac-12 would have with UT in that scenario is that they can essentially go to UT and tell them, we'll also invite whichever other schools you want, up to a maximum of (3 or 5). Sometimes people on these boards mention the idea of having 3 divisions in a conference -- would be a convenient setup for the Pac if they add UT plus 5 of UT's "friends" from the central time zone.

(07-12-2018 05:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:55 PM)Wedge Wrote:  UT and OU joining the SEC would shift Mizzou to the west, and Bama and Auburn to the east division. A division with Bama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia is not going to lack for attention from media or fans; in fact it would be more attractive to Florida and Georgia than the division they have now (of course it would also be more difficult for football).

But I can't see OU being allowed to make a move that would drop Ok St into the AAC or CUSA. At least not while Boone Pickens is still alive and spreading his money around.

They won't be. That's why if the Big 12 is cracked again the SEC will have to do it and do it by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair. While not optimal it puts the SEC in the position of not ever really being threatened economically by realignment moves other conferences could make. And if we wanted to grow larger than 16 there would only be one school we would take, Texas, and with them either Tech or another partner of their choosing.

The first choice for the SEC, or the Pac-12, or the Big Ten, is to have Texas in their conference. Their second choice is for Texas to stay where they are so that the other conferences don't get the Horns.

The risk of adding OU and Ok St is that it makes it very likely that Texas would also leave the Big 12, and if the SEC doesn't get UT in the same deal, then another conference will get them. On the other hand, the SEC might think that the Pac-12 with UT isn't even close to being the same threat as the Big Ten with UT, so as long as UT doesn't go to the Big Ten they won't be too concerned.

That's exactly our line of thinking. Let's say we did take OU and OSU. If so then Kansas doesn't hold enough value for the Big 10 to add them. So the Big 10 makes the only play that is left and tries for Texas and Kansas. The only thing hampering them with this scenario is the same thing that hampered them with Oklahoma, they can't take the 2nd state school. The PAC can. So Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State become a group that might make the PAC a possibility. If Kansas State isn't that appealing then Iowa State is still there for that grouping. Three AAU's and Texas Tech as the price for it is probably very doable.

The SEC wouldn't be bent out of shape because OU gives us the edge in branding we were looking for and the two Oklahoma schools both dip into the DFW market which with Arkansas and A&M already in the house gives us that market.

Where Texas goes, even to the Big 10, doesn't bother us as much because with Oklahoma and A&M we have enough branding in the Texas/Oklahoma region for it not to affect our ad rates there.

But, if UT look around and sees all 3 of their top rivals in the SEC (A&M, Arkansas, & Oklahoma) and they knuckle under for the sake of the home ticket book and want to join then Tech or Kansas to finish it out really meshes well with what we are doing and the added value puts us out of reach.

So getting OU is our key to succeeding in the West. Oklahoma State is the cost of that move. Then our initial objectives are met with regard to DFW, and in sustaining our valuation for product in that region. Anything else that happens at that point that is favorable is gravy, and anything that strengthened our chief rival the Big 10 wouldn't really hurt us as they would be catching back up to us.

Yeah, the one advantage the Pac-12 would have with UT in that scenario is that they can essentially go to UT and tell them, we'll also invite whichever other schools you want, up to a maximum of (3 or 5). Sometimes people on these boards mention the idea of having 3 divisions in a conference -- would be a convenient setup for the Pac if they add UT plus 5 of UT's "friends" from the central time zone.

I've been a major proponent of 18 schools in a conference because it is the best format for allowing regional groupings to remain intact.

If the SEC took Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, something the PAC has shown it is not inclined to do, then I could see Texas, T.C.U., Tech, Kansas, K.S.U. and I.S.U. being those 6 schools. That puts the PAC throughout the 28 million in the state of Texas. Austin gives you Houston and the Eastern half of the state in spades, while T.C.U. added to Texas would give the PAC a presence in a city of 7 million, and Tech is the West Texas bridge into the region. Utah and Colorado connect you to the two Kansas schools and Iowa State gives you a natural rival game with the Big 10. You get 3 AAU's out of it and with T.C.U. adding a medical school they shouldn't be too much of a problem, especially since their seminary does not govern the main campus.

Between the SEC and PAC that's 8 Big 12 schools and it is quite likely that W.V.U. could land in the ACC.

I mention the number because 8 it what it takes to dissolve the Big 12. Nine would cement it. And if the PACN turned to ESPN for carriage the LHN issue would be more easily worked out and dissolution could permit a move ahead of the 2023-4 window which would be chaotic.

BTW: If the PAC moved to 18, the SEC to 16, the ACC at 15 likely 16, and the Big 10 remained at 14 then I could see things remaining stable for quite some time. Moving to a champs only format and allowing the PAC autonomy in the 3 division set up would be in everyone's mutual interest and it would likely force the inclusion of our favorite independent. If the Big 10 grew larger they might take two from the ACC in 2035-7, but the ACC would have Connecticut, Cincinnati, and the two Florida Schools with which to reload.

(07-12-2018 03:07 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 08:45 AM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 07:44 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 07:50 AM)Baylorbears11 Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 04:44 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Not if Kansas goes with them. Considering Baylor's situation, I understand why a Baylor fan would not want the Big12 to break up, but one way or another it is coming.

If you think it is ridiculous for the Big10 to go to 18 if they can get both OU and Texas, plus Kansas and Missouri, Iowa State etc. you are completely out of touch. The same thing goes for the SEC or the PAC. They would go to 18 in a heart beat if they could get both OU and Texas.

I'm quite aware of Baylor's situation in the college landscape and have long resigned myself to the fact that it is the Big 12 or nothing for the Bears. However, that is irrelevant to our current conversation of B1G expansion targets and how geography make this a near impossibility for UT to ever go the B1G. There still has not been a satisfactory response to my inquiry about why geography doesn't matter when it comes to UT but we'll move on. The idea that a group of Kansas, OU, and Texas all heading to the B1G is almost laughable. The scenario is only thinking of creating a contiguous geography but ignores all the other factors that go into realignment which, as a SMU fan you should be well aware, includes state politics. Kansas is not going to be split off from K-State without a landing spot for the Cats. OU is not going to be split off from OSU, without a landing spot for Cowboys. Texas is not going to split off from Tech, without a landing spot for the Raiders. Sure, maybe those teams go to the PAC or the SEC, but there are so many pieces that need to fall into place for the three to move to the B1G that it becomes a pipe dream.

Let's not forget lack of shared culture. I don't doubt that UT, OU, and Kansas are all potential B1G targets, but I don't see them all jumping ship and travelling half-across the country to play their nearest road games and to play second fiddle to Ohio State and Michigan. OU and Kansas have almost nothing in common with the B1G teams outside of Nebraska and maybe Iowa. UT has nothing in common with the northern schools.

UT to the B1G is a pipe dream. Doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, but that it is so unlikely to occur that we waste our breath discussing it.

Geography is not all that important, because if Texas goes to the Big10 they will be in a division with schools mostly from neighboring former Big8 states, how many times do I have to say it.

Texas has a lot more in common with the Big10 than you realize. UT places a great value on academics and the Big10 is the premier academic conference in the P5.

When the next realignment happens there is going to be a dogfight for OU and UT and if the Big10 or SEC gets gets them they will be the topdog in all of college football. To think that UT to the Big10 is a pipedream is sheer folly. BTW I do not know whose pipedream you are talking about, but it is not mine.

I could go on about your other comments, but I do not desire to go back and forth with you on this board. I just don't care that much what you think or say. I have already wasted too much time. Say what you want, I am done debating with you.

Then why are you here? This is a message board and a discussion about realignment. I'm sorry to deflate everyone's pie-in-the-sky conference ideals of a Midwestern conference that stretches all the way from New York City to the Gulf of Mexico, but try to bring some reality to the discussion. The UT move to the B1G is a pipedream for all the previously mentioned reasons because the hurdles needed to be overcome are simply tremendous.

At the end of the day, athletic conferences are for athletics. UT will continue to elevate its national standing anyway it can. They are capable of doing that regardless of what conference they are in. Nobody thinks Vanderbilt is an inferior institution for playing football with Kentucky. Nobody thinks that Duke or North Carolina are any lesser schools for playing tennis with Louisville. SMU certainly isn't perceived as a lower institution due to playing basketball with East Carolina and Memphis.

A conference move is primarily about money and where the most can be made. There may be an argument in a few years that the most money Texas can make is in the Pac, it could be that it is more lucrative to be independent, or to go to the B1G, or stay in the Big 12. Money isn't the be-all-end-all of that decision, but it is very heavily considered. UT will make a decision that benefits UT the most.

What won't change is that UT will remain in Austin, TX. It will remain hundreds of miles from the nearest state borders and will remain within comfortable driving distance of all the Texas schools (sans UTEP). UT will remain a large flagship for the state of Texas and its primary student body will be drawn from the state of Texas. Those students will become alums who may go out and join the great Texan diaspora, but the majority will remain in Texas. Those alums will go to Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Ft. Worth, Midland, etc. Those alums will have friends and family also from the state of Texas who went to all the other in-state schools. It is from these groups that college football derives it great interest. Loyalty to your alma mater, triumph over rivals and co-workers. Despite all its finery, UT (and SMU for that matter) are Texas schools, with Texan culture. These schools do not have any shared history with the B1G, nor do they have any shared culture with Michigan or Ohio that could compare to what Colorado shares with the PAC and the Big 8 schools or to what TAMU shares with the Big 12, SWC, and SEC schools. Outside of the money chase, there is nothing keeping this odd addition of UT and the B1G together. I simply cannot envision a world where any Texas fans are excited about playing Northwestern, or Illinois, or Purdue, or Minnesota, Wisconsin on a yearly basis.

Add to that, SMU fan, is that basically. you have just recreated the Big 12 within the Big Ten. What is the point of that??? I agree with you that UT does value its academics; but I also agree that with the Baylor fan that there needs to be a lure for UT to want to join the conference in the first place. There is a conference out there where UT could accomplish both goals and not have to worry too much about politics or the size of the conference. It’s not the Big Ten, not the SEC, and not even the Big 12. It’s the PAC-12. PAC-12 academics: check. PAC-12 size: currently at 12, so check. UT could bring along Texas Tech, Oklahoma, & Oklahoma State and be fine. They would even have room for an OOC game vs TAMU or Arkansas. To me, nothing else makes any sense at all.

I disagree that I have recreated the Big12. There is no Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State or West Virginia....just OU, KU, UT and Nebraska.... the best of the Big12 only.

Remember, all of this is based on the assumption there will be a realignment. If that happens UT must react accordingly, which probably means moving to a new conference. You and Baylorbears11 must understand that Texas will not just decide to join another conference because of its alure, but it will be a necessity.

I think most knowledgeable people believe that realignment is coming. UT will likely then have to make a choice. Obviously every conference wants Texas. The point is this.....UT will likely be forced to make a decision.

I do not believe Texas will ever agree to be on an island with any conference. (Even a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC.) To me that is for certain. So IMO they will not go to the Big10 or PAC alone.

Also, I do not personally believe Texas will join the SEC. I have the utmost respect for JRsec's opinion on realignment and he has a very good argument why they would, given ESPN's influence etc. I really know very little about that and he does. However, in the final analysis I do not believe Texas will follow little brother anywhere.

So IMO it could boil down to the following options:

1---Go to the Big10 with OU, KU, Missouri or Iowa State. (They could go with just OU or KU.)
2---Go to the PAC with OU, OSU, Tech and possibly KU and KSU.

Of course, if I am wrong about them going to the SEC, they could very well choose to go there.

The SEC's plan has been to corner Texas for decades.
When the Longhorns wouldn't join, the SEC took Arkansas to hasten the demise of the SWC.
Now they feel if they can take Oklahoma they will have boxed Texas in. The SEC would have accumulated A&M, Oklahoma and Arkansas (Texas' three biggest traditional rivals) and they would have no other place to go except for the SEC if they ever want to see their friends again.
Quite the Machiavellian Plot.

(07-12-2018 07:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC's plan has been to corner Texas for decades.
When the Longhorns wouldn't join, the SEC took Arkansas to hasten the demise of the SWC.
Now they feel if they can take Oklahoma they will have boxed Texas in. The SEC would have accumulated A&M, Oklahoma and Arkansas (Texas' three biggest traditional rivals) and they would have no other place to go except for the SEC if they ever want to see their friends again.
Quite the Machiavellian Plot.

Sounds like a hostage situation!

My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

(07-13-2018 09:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

I don't think the Big 12 brass are foolish enough to think that they could realistically lure any current P5 school, especially those in the Big Ten or SEC.

(07-13-2018 09:51 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

I don't think the Big 12 brass are foolish enough to think that they could realistically lure any current P5 school, especially those in the Big Ten or SEC.

then you will be surprised

(07-13-2018 10:10 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:51 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

I don't think the Big 12 brass are foolish enough to think that they could realistically lure any current P5 school, especially those in the Big Ten or SEC.

then you will be surprised

I'll grant that perhaps some might be foolish enough to believe that, but it's still foolish.

(07-13-2018 09:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

Why would Nebraska and Arkansas leave the $50M+/yr they are making in the B10 and SEC? They would be surely take a haircut in that situation.

(07-13-2018 10:13 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

Why would Nebraska and Arkansas leave the $50M+/yr they are making in the B10 and SEC? They would be surely take a haircut in that situation.

The Big Ten also has a GOR agreement. IIRC it runs through the end of their current commitment to Big Ten Network, which expires at the end of the 2031-32 school year.

(07-13-2018 10:13 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 09:13 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  My gut feeling is Texas and Oklahoma stay in the big12 and try to add two top brands like Nebraska and Arkansas, the recruiting will be much better for both schools, sounds unlikely now but when the next realignment happens strange things happen
I find it interesting that everyone only sees other conferences going on the attack after Texas and Oklahoma when it very well could the other way around, I mean think about the power tx and ok have, their sitting in a strong position to do this
When the b12 was looking at adding two teams recently I believe they were really fishing for two A5 blue bloods, not any g5s

Why would Nebraska and Arkansas leave the $50M+/yr they are making in the B10 and SEC? They would be surely take a haircut in that situation.

It depends on if you think those programs can make more from their Tier 3 than they lose from leaving their associated networks. UT makes more than anyone in the country and OU is close behind. Nebraska's financials would probably match the other two schools. Arkansas is harder sell though.

The other thing to consider, which isn't really discussed in these forums, is whether a brand receives more value from being one conference as opposed to another. Arkansas was a top-shelf brand for many years when they were with the SWC. They had the most spotlight and national recognition of their programs during their tenure with the SWC. Since the move to the SEC the Hogs have sat far in the shadows of LSU, Alabama, and Auburn (whom they share a division with) and well behind other conference mates of Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. Arkansas, as a brand, is less valuable as middling SEC program than it is as a premier SWC program. This isn't to say the Hogs don't make more money in the SEC than they did in the SWC, they certainly do. But the move hit their program hard. Arkansas might very well consider an offer of moving over to the Big 12 if money were comparable and it gave their programs a chance to standout more. Arkansas in a reformed Big 12 south would sit only below UT in terms of prestige. I will say on this matter, from personal discussions, that Arkansas isn't strongly opposed to the idea. There are more than few money donors who are tired of middling around the SEC and are open to hearing offers on returning back to the fold of their traditional rivals. This is a minority group,but they do exist.