(09-04-2018 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  About one to two years out from the B12 contract expediting, the picture will be clearer

That's when the 8 other schools start pressuring UT and OU to sign a new GOR if they do then you know all is well and the B12 will continue. If they don't then there's two possibilities, neither good if you are not OU, KU or UT.

The first possibility is that they are holding out for more money and preferential treatment and will go to the eleventh hour before either giving up their demands or deciding that if they don't get those demands then they'll threaten to go somewhere else. Most of the other schools have no choice but to sign these demands. Some like KU may even decide they've had enough and put feelers out to the B1G or SEC.

The other possibility is one or both of them has already made plans to move elsewhere. OU may have already plotted with KU to move to the B1G or SEC ahead of time

It could even be a combination of those to hoodwink state politics.

OU and UT remain firm with their demands. KU announces it will no longer be blackmailed by football programs and goes to the B1G (knowing KSU can't follow) this then destabilizes the whole conference and gives OU the ability to say "we didn't plan this but now the conference is falling apart and we just happen to have this B1G/SEC invite as a life raft. It's too bad they won't take OSU too but we can't risk BOTH schools being left out!

That is one of several viable plans that the top 3 could utilize to get around some of the 2nd state school issues. Texas won't have that problem unless they want to. IMO Texas moves last, but only because it will benefit them to do so.

I'm not so sold that the Big 10 profits by adding Kansas. I think for the Big 10 Kansas is a back up 2nd choice if they can't get to Texas by taking Oklahoma. People forget that the PAC GOR expires at roughly the same time. Colorado / Oklahoma is a much stronger play for the Big 10 than Kansas / Oklahoma.

Kansas / Texas to the SEC and Colorado / Oklahoma to the Big 10 would be better adds geographically for both conferences. Colorado / Oklahoma is a better football and market get for the Big 10 than OU/KU. Why would Colorado move? Money is the only reason so it's certainly not a slam dunk, but the money would have to be tempting.

The PAC could respond with Texas Tech, T.C.U. and maybe Hawaii to get to 14.

I still believe in the end WVU heads East.

But let's say that the Big 10 makes the surprise first move and takes Oklahoma and Colorado. Oklahoma will first check with the SEC to see if we would take both Oklahoma schools. If Kansas senses the Big 10 is not as interested as they proclaim then Kansas might be the first to quietly agree to an SEC invitation. That gives OU the cover to leave OSU behind and they jump to the Big 10 with Colorado. The SEC now only needs one slot and ESPN will be working hard on Texas.

Or, since the Big 10 has always either quietly handled a move (Penn State) or deflected their big intentions by other talk (like the OU / KU talk where OU doesn't fit their academics and KU doesn't bring much to the table they don't already have like basketball and markets) they could be working on Colorado and Texas as their first two choices in which case OU and KU make sense for the SEC. But if they are after OU and KU to fit with Nebraska and cement that former addition with some old friends then Texas / Texas Tech, or even Texas / T.C.U. make sense for us.

But never rule out the possibility that the Big 10 has no intention of raiding the Big 12 this time and is actually saving slots for ACC targets in 10 years, or sooner if the ACCN doesn't pan out profitably enough to close the revenue gap.

By feigning interest in OU and KU they may be hoping to lure the SEC into the need to act defensively and use up two of our slots on Midwest properties with low population bases.

The fear in the Big 10 however would be that the SEC would somehow manage to lure both OU and UT. The total valuation of Big 10 product by the WSJ last year was over 5 billion. The value of the SEC was over 7 billion. Their valuation on UT and OU would total another 2.25 billion. The Big 10 can't afford to have the SEC acquire both Texas and Oklahoma because that would put us nearly at 10 billion in total value to their 5.

These are just a sampling of the various strategy angles that will be going into the next set of moves. I think the Big 10 is really after OU and UT. Why? They can't afford to not have a top Southern recruiting market. They can't afford for the SEC to land OU and UT and double up the Big 10 in earning potential. And those two schools are the last best content additions left on the table.

In my mind is the constant question of why be afraid to jump to 18 or even 20 when the stakes are so high. If it takes OSU and Tech to land both it will forever cement the SEC into first place in revenue, first place in content, first place in the highest % of viewers vs actual viewers, and give us essential control over the 2 of the 3 major growth centers in the U.S.. If it takes the addition of Kansas and any other school to cement it it is probably still worth the effort.

The acquisitions of Texas and Oklahoma are more valuable than any 4 top additions from the ACC.

So I think the battle is over OU and UT and that KU / TTU / or OSU could all stand to benefit depending on how the cards fall next time. The addition of North Carolina and Virginia are not equal in value to the addition of Texas to the Big 10.

It's game on and things will be in a lull until late 2022 and red hot by the summer of 2023.

(09-04-2018 12:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 10:40 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Keep in mind, as far as known, UT, TCU, and TTU, have not been committed to transition to another P5 conference. Nor has there been a determination that any B12 member will be regulated in the near future to a G-5 association and/or the AAC.

There have been numerous posts in multiple threads that TTU could end up in the PAC12 or the SEC. The last decade, Tech was considered as part of a "package deal" for the PAC. Some scenarios espoused are far-fetched; while others could be plausible under circumstances that take a particular direction.

Tech's interests would follow UT's interests for the most part, with geography being a big factor. That noted, Tech hasn't been extended an "escape option" that Texas A&M had when they headed to the SEC without UT. Would the PAC offer something similar to TTU in the future for a footprint in west Texas? It is not beyond contemplating.

All over these forums, many are advocating conferences of 18, 20, 24, etc. members. Well if such was reality, Tech would be included somewhere with the prime associations. To me, such gross sizes are not favored by existing conference honchos, or deemed practical, and is contrary to the protective stances elite conferences possess. That said, 16 member power conferences may be just around the corner.

I have observed threads, placing every B12 member, including Baylor, in another P5 conference. If such is the case, then why gut-away the B-12 in the first place? The B12 is making themselves further vulnerable with stagnation, posturing, and fearing what OU and/or UT may do. Of course there is dependency involved, and state political engagements occurring not only in Texas, but also in Kansas and Oklahoma. There is weakness in membership being too low. Their conference leadership looks like they enjoy the fine wine and dining plus travel, but is rather lazy or short-sighted in being pro-active.

That is the question no really seems to be able to answer. Everyone posits that the individual member of the B12 is valuable and will be a great add to a new conference. No reason is ever given as to why these great schools can't get along to make the B12 work.

It's a fair line of questioning, but I'll say the Big 12's current problems center around lack of good markets and an imbalance of power.

Texas and Oklahoma are worth so much more than the rest of them that it creates instability. The markets outside of TX are so small that there's little foundation for generating revenue.

I think there's some wisdom in the idea that some of these schools would be more useful/valuable if divvied up among the other leagues, but I agree that the overall value of most of them is limited.

Prior to the addition of A&M and Mizzou, I would say that the SEC had a similar imbalance. FL and GA were the most populated states, yet somehow that tilt didn't result discord with the other conference members.

I agree with you that individually certain B12 schools can recognize more value in another conference than where they were. But that serves to illustrate my point; grouping these schools in manner that emulates the B12 South does not seem to be a recipe for success. And I like ARK, A&M, MIZZOU, LSU, OLE MISS and MSST too much to relegate them to such a fate.

(09-04-2018 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  About one to two years out from the B12 contract expediting, the picture will be clearer

That's when the 8 other schools start pressuring UT and OU to sign a new GOR if they do then you know all is well and the B12 will continue. If they don't then there's two possibilities, neither good if you are not OU, KU or UT.

The first possibility is that they are holding out for more money and preferential treatment and will go to the eleventh hour before either giving up their demands or deciding that if they don't get those demands then they'll threaten to go somewhere else. Most of the other schools have no choice but to sign these demands. Some like KU may even decide they've had enough and put feelers out to the B1G or SEC.

The other possibility is one or both of them has already made plans to move elsewhere. OU may have already plotted with KU to move to the B1G or SEC ahead of time

It could even be a combination of those to hoodwink state politics.

OU and UT remain firm with their demands. KU announces it will no longer be blackmailed by football programs and goes to the B1G (knowing KSU can't follow) this then destabilizes the whole conference and gives OU the ability to say "we didn't plan this but now the conference is falling apart and we just happen to have this B1G/SEC invite as a life raft. It's too bad they won't take OSU too but we can't risk BOTH schools being left out!

Why do we need to wait? The fact that UTX and OU won't re-up right now speaks volumes. There aren't any financial concessions that the other 8 members can make that would appease the Longhorns or Sooners. At this point all we are waiting for is the political wrangling and frivolous lawsuits to begin.

Part of me thinks the reason nothing has happened is that a plan is already in place that can't be enacted until the GOR expires. It would be the best way to avoid the Tortuous Interference lawsuits that are going to fly when the B12 gives up the ghost.

(09-04-2018 06:12 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 12:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 10:40 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Keep in mind, as far as known, UT, TCU, and TTU, have not been committed to transition to another P5 conference. Nor has there been a determination that any B12 member will be regulated in the near future to a G-5 association and/or the AAC.

There have been numerous posts in multiple threads that TTU could end up in the PAC12 or the SEC. The last decade, Tech was considered as part of a "package deal" for the PAC. Some scenarios espoused are far-fetched; while others could be plausible under circumstances that take a particular direction.

Tech's interests would follow UT's interests for the most part, with geography being a big factor. That noted, Tech hasn't been extended an "escape option" that Texas A&M had when they headed to the SEC without UT. Would the PAC offer something similar to TTU in the future for a footprint in west Texas? It is not beyond contemplating.

All over these forums, many are advocating conferences of 18, 20, 24, etc. members. Well if such was reality, Tech would be included somewhere with the prime associations. To me, such gross sizes are not favored by existing conference honchos, or deemed practical, and is contrary to the protective stances elite conferences possess. That said, 16 member power conferences may be just around the corner.

I have observed threads, placing every B12 member, including Baylor, in another P5 conference. If such is the case, then why gut-away the B-12 in the first place? The B12 is making themselves further vulnerable with stagnation, posturing, and fearing what OU and/or UT may do. Of course there is dependency involved, and state political engagements occurring not only in Texas, but also in Kansas and Oklahoma. There is weakness in membership being too low. Their conference leadership looks like they enjoy the fine wine and dining plus travel, but is rather lazy or short-sighted in being pro-active.

That is the question no really seems to be able to answer. Everyone posits that the individual member of the B12 is valuable and will be a great add to a new conference. No reason is ever given as to why these great schools can't get along to make the B12 work.

It's a fair line of questioning, but I'll say the Big 12's current problems center around lack of good markets and an imbalance of power.

Texas and Oklahoma are worth so much more than the rest of them that it creates instability. The markets outside of TX are so small that there's little foundation for generating revenue.

I think there's some wisdom in the idea that some of these schools would be more useful/valuable if divvied up among the other leagues, but I agree that the overall value of most of them is limited.

Prior to the addition of A&M and Mizzou, I would say that the SEC had a similar imbalance. FL and GA were the most populated states, yet somehow that tilt didn't result discord with the other conference members.

I agree with you that individually certain B12 schools can recognize more value in another conference than where they were. But that serves to illustrate my point; grouping these schools in manner that emulates the B12 South does not seem to be a recipe for success. And I like ARK, A&M, MIZZOU, LSU, OLE MISS and MSST too much to relegate them to such a fate.

No, I wouldn't say our imbalance was nearly as dramatic. The Big 12 footprint only contains 5 states. Looking at their roster, TX is the 2nd largest state in the country and also has about 7 million more people than FL. On the opposite end, KS and WV are quite small. OK and IA aren't much larger, but only OK had the penetration to make up for it. But it's not just the market size, it's how many schools are drawing from that pool. The imbalance is stark.

On our end, we had a very large state in FL while having another good sized one in GA as the 8th largest. It's true the scales were tipped in their favor, but proportionally speaking, TN is not much smaller than GA. After that you've got AL, KY, LA, and SC...all of those are about the same size and are in the top half of populated states nationwide. Key point here, OK is the 2nd largest market in the Big 12 and only AR and MS are smaller than OK and not by significant number.

I do agree that the numbers are more balanced thanks to A&M and Mizzou, but we weren't in a bad position previously.

But another facet of this is the strength of the individual programs. The Big 12 doesn't have a large number of strong revenue producers. The SEC has a lot more and did before A&M and Mizzou showed up.

I do understand your point and I'm not saying that adding a ton of Big 12 schools is definitely a win/win for us, but we have to consider the averages when looking at the economics.

That and the Big 12 before their 4 defections wasn't much better off market wise. The states of NE and WV are about the same size. They didn't replace CO or MO, but I think it's significant that stronger leagues were existent on all sides and were essentially pulling at the fabric of the Big 12. When you combine that with the foolishness in Austin then it's not shocking they couldn't keep things together.

The key thing is to keep Texas in check. They had the ability to throw weight around in the Big 12 because there were too few schools in their peer group. That wouldn't be true should they move to the SEC.

(09-04-2018 06:22 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 02:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  About one to two years out from the B12 contract expediting, the picture will be clearer

That's when the 8 other schools start pressuring UT and OU to sign a new GOR if they do then you know all is well and the B12 will continue. If they don't then there's two possibilities, neither good if you are not OU, KU or UT.

The first possibility is that they are holding out for more money and preferential treatment and will go to the eleventh hour before either giving up their demands or deciding that if they don't get those demands then they'll threaten to go somewhere else. Most of the other schools have no choice but to sign these demands. Some like KU may even decide they've had enough and put feelers out to the B1G or SEC.

The other possibility is one or both of them has already made plans to move elsewhere. OU may have already plotted with KU to move to the B1G or SEC ahead of time

It could even be a combination of those to hoodwink state politics.

OU and UT remain firm with their demands. KU announces it will no longer be blackmailed by football programs and goes to the B1G (knowing KSU can't follow) this then destabilizes the whole conference and gives OU the ability to say "we didn't plan this but now the conference is falling apart and we just happen to have this B1G/SEC invite as a life raft. It's too bad they won't take OSU too but we can't risk BOTH schools being left out!

Why do we need to wait? The fact that UTX and OU won't re-up right now speaks volumes. There aren't any financial concessions that the other 8 members can make that would appease the Longhorns or Sooners. At this point all we are waiting for is the political wrangling and frivolous lawsuits to begin.

Part of me thinks the reason nothing has happened is that a plan is already in place that can't be enacted until the GOR expires. It would be the best way to avoid the Tortuous Interference lawsuits that are going to fly when the B12 gives up the ghost.

JR has already written about this. The only lawsuits the SEC need to be worried about comes from Waco and Ft. Worth. Waco tried when A&M left but they were quickly shut down. Tx Lawmakers will not save privates in Waco and Ft. Worth if Austin, Lubbock and College Station are taken care of.

The Tx privates get to hide behind their private status and I say let them stay private in the AAC.

(09-04-2018 06:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The key thing is to keep Texas in check. They had the ability to throw weight around in the Big 12 because there were too few schools in their peer group. That wouldn't be true should they move to the SEC.

The Texoma 4 only have 4 votes. A&M and maybe Arkansas will always side with Alabama and Auburn.

UT and OU will no longer be the big dog with Alabama, Florida, LSU and Georgia in the room.

Every P5 conference has their Kansas, Wazzou, Wake Forest, Northwestern and Purdue and every conference has their USC, UCLA, Alabama, Georgia, Florida St, Clemson Ohio St and Penn St. Adding the Texoma 4 makes the SEC more unbeatable.

That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues. Although it also has the benefit of being the only conference that has actually said they are willing to make UT and OU's political lives easier by allowing in their respective little brother tagalongs as the price for getting their actual targets.

(09-04-2018 11:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues

Possibly the ACC might cave into them the way that they did with Notre Dame. I don't think that is their best play, but if it is the only one that allows ESPN to keep them in the fold then it is an option.

(09-04-2018 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues

Possibly the ACC might cave into them the way that they did with Notre Dame.

Possibly. Though I would suspect that with their desire to get the ACC network up and going I can't see them agreeing to leave UT content out.

The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation. The ACC swims between two very big sharks and can't afford such complacency

(09-04-2018 11:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues

Possibly the ACC might cave into them the way that they did with Notre Dame.

Possibly. Though I would suspect that with their desire to get the ACC network up and going I can't see them agreeing to leave UT content out.

The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation. The ACC swims between two very big sharks and can't afford such complacency

I don't think that the ACC should worry too much about those two sharks when the pond they are swimming in is owned by fish eating Tyrannosaurus called ESPN.

Even Texas sucks from the teat of the that dinosaur.

They could work it out in one of two much discussed ways.
1. Give Texas the same deal that Notre Dame got and let them keep the LHN.
2. Ask that Texas join in full and convert the LHN and encourage N.D. to do the same.

IMO the former is an easy sell, except for the minor sports issue. The latter is much tougher. But there is a third way to accomplish this.

3. Texas joins in full for football only. Notre Dame remains a member for everything but football. And West Virginia joins for all sports.

(09-04-2018 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues

Possibly the ACC might cave into them the way that they did with Notre Dame.

Possibly. Though I would suspect that with their desire to get the ACC network up and going I can't see them agreeing to leave UT content out.

The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation. The ACC swims between two very big sharks and can't afford such complacency

I don't think that the ACC should worry too much about those two sharks when the pond they are swimming in is owned by fish eating Tyrannosaurus called ESPN.

Even Texas sucks from the teat of the that dinosaur.

They could work it out in one of two much discussed ways.
1. Give Texas the same deal that Notre Dame got and let them keep the LHN.
2. Ask that Texas join in full and convert the LHN and encourage N.D. to do the same.

IMO the former is an easy sell, except for the minor sports issue. The latter is much tougher. But there is a third way to accomplish this.

3. Texas joins in full for football only. Notre Dame remains a member for everything but football. And West Virginia joins for all sports.

It will be hard to find a peer league that would be willing to take the minor sports of Texas without getting their football program.

Some semblance of the Big 12 could be left standing, but I don't know that UT would be interested in splitting their priorities like that.

(09-04-2018 11:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:11 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues

Possibly the ACC might cave into them the way that they did with Notre Dame.

Possibly. Though I would suspect that with their desire to get the ACC network up and going I can't see them agreeing to leave UT content out.

The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation. The ACC swims between two very big sharks and can't afford such complacency

I don't think that the ACC should worry too much about those two sharks when the pond they are swimming in is owned by fish eating Tyrannosaurus called ESPN.

Even Texas sucks from the teat of the that dinosaur.

They could work it out in one of two much discussed ways.
1. Give Texas the same deal that Notre Dame got and let them keep the LHN.
2. Ask that Texas join in full and convert the LHN and encourage N.D. to do the same.

IMO the former is an easy sell, except for the minor sports issue. The latter is much tougher. But there is a third way to accomplish this.

3. Texas joins in full for football only. Notre Dame remains a member for everything but football. And West Virginia joins for all sports.

It will be hard to find a peer league that would be willing to take the minor sports of Texas without getting their football program.

Some semblance of the Big 12 could be left standing, but I don't know that UT would be interested in splitting their priorities like that.

My bet is that they won't. My bet is that they will be more than happy to have Tech and A&M with them in a 16 member SEC and that OU and KU wind up in the Big 10 not necessarily because that is what they want, but because it is what Texas will want, and that one detail will be the only concession they get out of the SEC or ESPN.

Why do I believe this? Because all they ever wanted was as many games close enough for their fans to drive to with the possibilities of away games in Texas.

They'll keep OU if the Big 10 allows them to play a non conference game during the heart of the Big 10 schedule. If not the RRR is dead an Nebraska will take that slot on the OU schedule and A&M will take that slot on the Texas schedule.

It is the only way Texas can restore the games their fans want to see the most, keep their minor sports in an esteemed conference and close to home, and regain advantages over many they had to elevate to maintain the Big 12.

And most importantly it is something that might well be amenable to ESPN.

But I readily admit I could be wrong. But whether I am right or wrong it is the most logical conclusion with the facts at hand.

(09-04-2018 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That is one of several viable plans that the top 3 could utilize to get around some of the 2nd state school issues. Texas won't have that problem unless they want to. IMO Texas moves last, but only because it will benefit them to do so.

I'm not so sold that the Big 10 profits by adding Kansas. I think for the Big 10 Kansas is a back up 2nd choice if they can't get to Texas by taking Oklahoma. People forget that the PAC GOR expires at roughly the same time. Colorado / Oklahoma is a much stronger play for the Big 10 than Kansas / Oklahoma.

Kansas / Texas to the SEC and Colorado / Oklahoma to the Big 10 would be better adds geographically for both conferences. Colorado / Oklahoma is a better football and market get for the Big 10 than OU/KU. Why would Colorado move? Money is the only reason so it's certainly not a slam dunk, but the money would have to be tempting.

The PAC could respond with Texas Tech, T.C.U. and maybe Hawaii to get to 14.

I still believe in the end WVU heads East.

But let's say that the Big 10 makes the surprise first move and takes Oklahoma and Colorado. Oklahoma will first check with the SEC to see if we would take both Oklahoma schools. If Kansas senses the Big 10 is not as interested as they proclaim then Kansas might be the first to quietly agree to an SEC invitation. That gives OU the cover to leave OSU behind and they jump to the Big 10 with Colorado. The SEC now only needs one slot and ESPN will be working hard on Texas.

Or, since the Big 10 has always either quietly handled a move (Penn State) or deflected their big intentions by other talk (like the OU / KU talk where OU doesn't fit their academics and KU doesn't bring much to the table they don't already have like basketball and markets) they could be working on Colorado and Texas as their first two choices in which case OU and KU make sense for the SEC. But if they are after OU and KU to fit with Nebraska and cement that former addition with some old friends then Texas / Texas Tech, or even Texas / T.C.U. make sense for us.

But never rule out the possibility that the Big 10 has no intention of raiding the Big 12 this time and is actually saving slots for ACC targets in 10 years, or sooner if the ACCN doesn't pan out profitably enough to close the revenue gap.

By feigning interest in OU and KU they may be hoping to lure the SEC into the need to act defensively and use up two of our slots on Midwest properties with low population bases.

The fear in the Big 10 however would be that the SEC would somehow manage to lure both OU and UT. The total valuation of Big 10 product by the WSJ last year was over 5 billion. The value of the SEC was over 7 billion. Their valuation on UT and OU would total another 2.25 billion. The Big 10 can't afford to have the SEC acquire both Texas and Oklahoma because that would put us nearly at 10 billion in total value to their 5.

These are just a sampling of the various strategy angles that will be going into the next set of moves. I think the Big 10 is really after OU and UT. Why? They can't afford to not have a top Southern recruiting market. They can't afford for the SEC to land OU and UT and double up the Big 10 in earning potential. And those two schools are the last best content additions left on the table.

In my mind is the constant question of why be afraid to jump to 18 or even 20 when the stakes are so high. If it takes OSU and Tech to land both it will forever cement the SEC into first place in revenue, first place in content, first place in the highest % of viewers vs actual viewers, and give us essential control over the 2 of the 3 major growth centers in the U.S.. If it takes the addition of Kansas and any other school to cement it it is probably still worth the effort.

The acquisitions of Texas and Oklahoma are more valuable than any 4 top additions from the ACC.

So I think the battle is over OU and UT and that KU / TTU / or OSU could all stand to benefit depending on how the cards fall next time. The addition of North Carolina and Virginia are not equal in value to the addition of Texas to the Big 10.

It's game on and things will be in a lull until late 2022 and red hot by the summer of 2023.

(09-04-2018 11:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  My bet is that they won't. My bet is that they will be more than happy to have Tech and A&M with them in a 16 member SEC and that OU and KU wind up in the Big 10 not necessarily because that is what they want, but because it is what Texas will want, and that one detail will be the only concession they get out of the SEC or ESPN.

Why do I believe this? Because all they ever wanted was as many games close enough for their fans to drive to with the possibilities of away games in Texas.

They'll keep OU if the Big 10 allows them to play a non conference game during the heart of the Big 10 schedule. If not the RRR is dead an Nebraska will take that slot on the OU schedule and A&M will take that slot on the Texas schedule.

It is the only way Texas can restore the games their fans want to see the most, keep their minor sports in an esteemed conference and close to home, and regain advantages over many they had to elevate to maintain the Big 12.

And most importantly it is something that might well be amenable to ESPN.

But I readily admit I could be wrong. But whether I am right or wrong it is the most logical conclusion with the facts at hand.

I think that Texas and Texas Tech moving to the SEC is about as simple as it gets as far as meeting a host of priorities and not rocking the boat in the process.

If Colorado is willing to jump to the Big Ten then things could get really interesting on that front as well. What about this idea? Let's say CU wants the B1G's money, but they want something else to move the needle in their direction...the state politicians want a better deal for their state. CU agrees to jump to the B1G if Colorado State gets an invitation to a Power league. In the long run, the state of CO's population growth probably supports this sort of endeavor more so than a state like KS or some others.

And what if the B1G was asked to protect another school in a populous region in order to have their deal facilitated? Would they balk at a school like TCU? It's not a state flagship, but it has a lot of advantages and brings a lot of value to a Northern conference.

If the SEC took Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Colorado State

If the B1G took Oklahoma, Colorado, TCU, and Iowa State

At that point, both the SEC and B1G would stand at 18 and I don't think the ACC would balk at voting for an expanded postseason.

(09-05-2018 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That is one of several viable plans that the top 3 could utilize to get around some of the 2nd state school issues. Texas won't have that problem unless they want to. IMO Texas moves last, but only because it will benefit them to do so.

I'm not so sold that the Big 10 profits by adding Kansas. I think for the Big 10 Kansas is a back up 2nd choice if they can't get to Texas by taking Oklahoma. People forget that the PAC GOR expires at roughly the same time. Colorado / Oklahoma is a much stronger play for the Big 10 than Kansas / Oklahoma.

Kansas / Texas to the SEC and Colorado / Oklahoma to the Big 10 would be better adds geographically for both conferences. Colorado / Oklahoma is a better football and market get for the Big 10 than OU/KU. Why would Colorado move? Money is the only reason so it's certainly not a slam dunk, but the money would have to be tempting.

The PAC could respond with Texas Tech, T.C.U. and maybe Hawaii to get to 14.

I still believe in the end WVU heads East.

But let's say that the Big 10 makes the surprise first move and takes Oklahoma and Colorado. Oklahoma will first check with the SEC to see if we would take both Oklahoma schools. If Kansas senses the Big 10 is not as interested as they proclaim then Kansas might be the first to quietly agree to an SEC invitation. That gives OU the cover to leave OSU behind and they jump to the Big 10 with Colorado. The SEC now only needs one slot and ESPN will be working hard on Texas.

Or, since the Big 10 has always either quietly handled a move (Penn State) or deflected their big intentions by other talk (like the OU / KU talk where OU doesn't fit their academics and KU doesn't bring much to the table they don't already have like basketball and markets) they could be working on Colorado and Texas as their first two choices in which case OU and KU make sense for the SEC. But if they are after OU and KU to fit with Nebraska and cement that former addition with some old friends then Texas / Texas Tech, or even Texas / T.C.U. make sense for us.

But never rule out the possibility that the Big 10 has no intention of raiding the Big 12 this time and is actually saving slots for ACC targets in 10 years, or sooner if the ACCN doesn't pan out profitably enough to close the revenue gap.

By feigning interest in OU and KU they may be hoping to lure the SEC into the need to act defensively and use up two of our slots on Midwest properties with low population bases.

The fear in the Big 10 however would be that the SEC would somehow manage to lure both OU and UT. The total valuation of Big 10 product by the WSJ last year was over 5 billion. The value of the SEC was over 7 billion. Their valuation on UT and OU would total another 2.25 billion. The Big 10 can't afford to have the SEC acquire both Texas and Oklahoma because that would put us nearly at 10 billion in total value to their 5.

These are just a sampling of the various strategy angles that will be going into the next set of moves. I think the Big 10 is really after OU and UT. Why? They can't afford to not have a top Southern recruiting market. They can't afford for the SEC to land OU and UT and double up the Big 10 in earning potential. And those two schools are the last best content additions left on the table.

In my mind is the constant question of why be afraid to jump to 18 or even 20 when the stakes are so high. If it takes OSU and Tech to land both it will forever cement the SEC into first place in revenue, first place in content, first place in the highest % of viewers vs actual viewers, and give us essential control over the 2 of the 3 major growth centers in the U.S.. If it takes the addition of Kansas and any other school to cement it it is probably still worth the effort.

The acquisitions of Texas and Oklahoma are more valuable than any 4 top additions from the ACC.

So I think the battle is over OU and UT and that KU / TTU / or OSU could all stand to benefit depending on how the cards fall next time. The addition of North Carolina and Virginia are not equal in value to the addition of Texas to the Big 10.

It's game on and things will be in a lull until late 2022 and red hot by the summer of 2023.

(09-04-2018 11:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  My bet is that they won't. My bet is that they will be more than happy to have Tech and A&M with them in a 16 member SEC and that OU and KU wind up in the Big 10 not necessarily because that is what they want, but because it is what Texas will want, and that one detail will be the only concession they get out of the SEC or ESPN.

Why do I believe this? Because all they ever wanted was as many games close enough for their fans to drive to with the possibilities of away games in Texas.

They'll keep OU if the Big 10 allows them to play a non conference game during the heart of the Big 10 schedule. If not the RRR is dead an Nebraska will take that slot on the OU schedule and A&M will take that slot on the Texas schedule.

It is the only way Texas can restore the games their fans want to see the most, keep their minor sports in an esteemed conference and close to home, and regain advantages over many they had to elevate to maintain the Big 12.

And most importantly it is something that might well be amenable to ESPN.

But I readily admit I could be wrong. But whether I am right or wrong it is the most logical conclusion with the facts at hand.

I think that Texas and Texas Tech moving to the SEC is about as simple as it gets as far as meeting a host of priorities and not rocking the boat in the process.

If Colorado is willing to jump to the Big Ten then things could get really interesting on that front as well. What about this idea? Let's say CU wants the B1G's money, but they want something else to move the needle in their direction...the state politicians want a better deal for their state. CU agrees to jump to the B1G if Colorado State gets an invitation to a Power league. In the long run, the state of CO's population growth probably supports this sort of endeavor more so than a state like KS or some others.

And what if the B1G was asked to protect another school in a populous region in order to have their deal facilitated? Would they balk at a school like TCU? It's not a state flagship, but it has a lot of advantages and brings a lot of value to a Northern conference.

If the SEC took Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Colorado State

If the B1G took Oklahoma, Colorado, TCU, and Iowa State

At that point, both the SEC and B1G would stand at 18 and I don't think the ACC would balk at voting for an expanded postseason.

Ohio1317 has one of the more level heads on the board for a Big 10 poster. BadgerMJ is pretty sharp as well. Transyc usually drops in here and he has a good grasp of their viewpoints.

I think the best bet for CSU if Colorado defected would be the PAC. I really could see the PAC take T.C.U. and C.S.U. because those are markets they would love.

I mentioned Ohio1317 because he doesn't believe they would expand beyond 16 and I think that may be the SEC's thinking as well. Since the PAC and B1G are likely to partner up CSU to the PAC might be workable.

I would be very happy if we landed Texas and Kansas. Ecstatic if we landed Texas and Oklahoma. But landing Texas and Tech and not losing out on monopolizing a major state like we did in Florida would still be a huge win.

The Big 10 would not be thrilled with T.C.U. period. Small enrollment, not AAU, and not strong in research. Iowa State?

If they landed Oklahoma and Colorado and we did land Texas and Kansas, I could see the PAC taking Texas Tech as a bridge, T.C.U. for DFW, Colorado State for Denver, and possibly making the move for the Asian market like they've talked about by taking Hawaii. That's a lot of market to be picked up.

Then WVU to the ACC with N.D. eventually following makes sense.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State all get absorbed by the AAC in an upgrade.

(09-04-2018 06:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  No, I wouldn't say our imbalance was nearly as dramatic. The Big 12 footprint only contains 5 states. Looking at their roster, TX is the 2nd largest state in the country and also has about 7 million more people than FL. On the opposite end, KS and WV are quite small. OK and IA aren't much larger, but only OK had the penetration to make up for it. But it's not just the market size, it's how many schools are drawing from that pool. The imbalance is stark.

On our end, we had a very large state in FL while having another good sized one in GA as the 8th largest. It's true the scales were tipped in their favor, but proportionally speaking, TN is not much smaller than GA. After that you've got AL, KY, LA, and SC...all of those are about the same size and are in the top half of populated states nationwide. Key point here, OK is the 2nd largest market in the Big 12 and only AR and MS are smaller than OK and not by significant number.

I do agree that the numbers are more balanced thanks to A&M and Mizzou, but we weren't in a bad position previously.

But another facet of this is the strength of the individual programs. The Big 12 doesn't have a large number of strong revenue producers. The SEC has a lot more and did before A&M and Mizzou showed up.

I do understand your point and I'm not saying that adding a ton of Big 12 schools is definitely a win/win for us, but we have to consider the averages when looking at the economics.

That and the Big 12 before their 4 defections wasn't much better off market wise. The states of NE and WV are about the same size. They didn't replace CO or MO, but I think it's significant that stronger leagues were existent on all sides and were essentially pulling at the fabric of the Big 12. When you combine that with the foolishness in Austin then it's not shocking they couldn't keep things together.

The key thing is to keep Texas in check. They had the ability to throw weight around in the Big 12 because there were too few schools in their peer group. That wouldn't be true should they move to the SEC.

I'll concede the population imbalance might not be as drastic in the SEC as it was in the B12. But the bolded is my concern. If the Longhorns can't check themselves, why risk the investment?

(09-04-2018 11:02 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's simply not how UT operates and the biggest reason they'll never try to join the SEC (the second being their own pride. They can't cope with going from being a big fish in a small pond with just one other big fish and a bunch of small fry to being just another big fish in an ocean of big fish)

UT doesn't want to make the most money possible. They want to make proportionally more money than everyone else around them even if that's less money overall.

IOW if you offered them the choice of A) everyone gets 10 million or B) they get 6 million but everyone else only gets 2 million then they'll go for choice B every time.

As of right now the only conference even possibly willing to give that to them is the PAC so they'll probably look there one last time even though the PAC would present a LOT of other issues. Although it also has the benefit of being the only conference that has actually said they are willing to make UT and OU's political lives easier by allowing in their respective little brother tagalongs as the price for getting their actual targets.

While I understand that you have a better perspective on UTX than I ever could, I think the reason the Longhorns are resistant to moving is all of the ink they have spilled calling to the SEC a retrograde athletic conference. Having to eat that crow is more galling than anything having to do with A&M. To even get the Longhorns a conference needs to:

• Workout some argreement with ESPN regarding the LHN
• Include 1-3 former B12 conference teams
• Aid in crafting a narrative where they aren't implicated in killing the B12
• Make it look like they weren't in desperate need of the invite
  

And all of those things are before they even show up to media days. The Longhorns are the dime piece trophy wife with three kids by 2 baby daddies. The money angle is intriguing don't get me wrong, but I'm not in love with the SEC being their white knight.

(09-04-2018 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That is one of several viable plans that the top 3 could utilize to get around some of the 2nd state school issues. Texas won't have that problem unless they want to. IMO Texas moves last, but only because it will benefit them to do so.

I'm not so sold that the Big 10 profits by adding Kansas. I think for the Big 10 Kansas is a back up 2nd choice if they can't get to Texas by taking Oklahoma. People forget that the PAC GOR expires at roughly the same time. Colorado / Oklahoma is a much stronger play for the Big 10 than Kansas / Oklahoma.

Kansas / Texas to the SEC and Colorado / Oklahoma to the Big 10 would be better adds geographically for both conferences. Colorado / Oklahoma is a better football and market get for the Big 10 than OU/KU. Why would Colorado move? Money is the only reason so it's certainly not a slam dunk, but the money would have to be tempting.

The PAC could respond with Texas Tech, T.C.U. and maybe Hawaii to get to 14.

I still believe in the end WVU heads East.

But let's say that the Big 10 makes the surprise first move and takes Oklahoma and Colorado. Oklahoma will first check with the SEC to see if we would take both Oklahoma schools. If Kansas senses the Big 10 is not as interested as they proclaim then Kansas might be the first to quietly agree to an SEC invitation. That gives OU the cover to leave OSU behind and they jump to the Big 10 with Colorado. The SEC now only needs one slot and ESPN will be working hard on Texas.

Or, since the Big 10 has always either quietly handled a move (Penn State) or deflected their big intentions by other talk (like the OU / KU talk where OU doesn't fit their academics and KU doesn't bring much to the table they don't already have like basketball and markets) they could be working on Colorado and Texas as their first two choices in which case OU and KU make sense for the SEC. But if they are after OU and KU to fit with Nebraska and cement that former addition with some old friends then Texas / Texas Tech, or even Texas / T.C.U. make sense for us.

But never rule out the possibility that the Big 10 has no intention of raiding the Big 12 this time and is actually saving slots for ACC targets in 10 years, or sooner if the ACCN doesn't pan out profitably enough to close the revenue gap.

By feigning interest in OU and KU they may be hoping to lure the SEC into the need to act defensively and use up two of our slots on Midwest properties with low population bases.

The fear in the Big 10 however would be that the SEC would somehow manage to lure both OU and UT. The total valuation of Big 10 product by the WSJ last year was over 5 billion. The value of the SEC was over 7 billion. Their valuation on UT and OU would total another 2.25 billion. The Big 10 can't afford to have the SEC acquire both Texas and Oklahoma because that would put us nearly at 10 billion in total value to their 5.

These are just a sampling of the various strategy angles that will be going into the next set of moves. I think the Big 10 is really after OU and UT. Why? They can't afford to not have a top Southern recruiting market. They can't afford for the SEC to land OU and UT and double up the Big 10 in earning potential. And those two schools are the last best content additions left on the table.

In my mind is the constant question of why be afraid to jump to 18 or even 20 when the stakes are so high. If it takes OSU and Tech to land both it will forever cement the SEC into first place in revenue, first place in content, first place in the highest % of viewers vs actual viewers, and give us essential control over the 2 of the 3 major growth centers in the U.S.. If it takes the addition of Kansas and any other school to cement it it is probably still worth the effort.

The acquisitions of Texas and Oklahoma are more valuable than any 4 top additions from the ACC.

So I think the battle is over OU and UT and that KU / TTU / or OSU could all stand to benefit depending on how the cards fall next time. The addition of North Carolina and Virginia are not equal in value to the addition of Texas to the Big 10.

It's game on and things will be in a lull until late 2022 and red hot by the summer of 2023.

But can the B1G truly maximize the valuations of OU and to a larger extent, UTX? The Sooners' B8 are well in the rear view mirror. While there is a slim chance that the B1G association might aid OU academically, it won't do a thing for the school athletically.

The UTX to the B1G pretty much requires the conference expand to 18 teams and they probably also need to have OU ride with them to make it work.

(09-05-2018 02:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 06:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  No, I wouldn't say our imbalance was nearly as dramatic. The Big 12 footprint only contains 5 states. Looking at their roster, TX is the 2nd largest state in the country and also has about 7 million more people than FL. On the opposite end, KS and WV are quite small. OK and IA aren't much larger, but only OK had the penetration to make up for it. But it's not just the market size, it's how many schools are drawing from that pool. The imbalance is stark.

On our end, we had a very large state in FL while having another good sized one in GA as the 8th largest. It's true the scales were tipped in their favor, but proportionally speaking, TN is not much smaller than GA. After that you've got AL, KY, LA, and SC...all of those are about the same size and are in the top half of populated states nationwide. Key point here, OK is the 2nd largest market in the Big 12 and only AR and MS are smaller than OK and not by significant number.

I do agree that the numbers are more balanced thanks to A&M and Mizzou, but we weren't in a bad position previously.

But another facet of this is the strength of the individual programs. The Big 12 doesn't have a large number of strong revenue producers. The SEC has a lot more and did before A&M and Mizzou showed up.

I do understand your point and I'm not saying that adding a ton of Big 12 schools is definitely a win/win for us, but we have to consider the averages when looking at the economics.

That and the Big 12 before their 4 defections wasn't much better off market wise. The states of NE and WV are about the same size. They didn't replace CO or MO, but I think it's significant that stronger leagues were existent on all sides and were essentially pulling at the fabric of the Big 12. When you combine that with the foolishness in Austin then it's not shocking they couldn't keep things together.

The key thing is to keep Texas in check. They had the ability to throw weight around in the Big 12 because there were too few schools in their peer group. That wouldn't be true should they move to the SEC.

I'll concede the population imbalance might not be as drastic in the SEC as it was in the B12. But the bolded is my concern. If the Longhorns can't check themselves, why risk the investment?

I understand. I'll be fine if we don't get Texas because I have the same fear in the back of my mind that they'll be more trouble than they're worth.

I don't think the SEC leadership would look at it quite the same way though. If they have the opportunity then I would be surprised if they don't pounce, but I do have faith they won't make any special promises to UT.

I think if we could manage Oklahoma and Kansas then the conference would be happy, but I think it depends on UT's availability.

(09-05-2018 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think that Texas and Texas Tech moving to the SEC is about as simple as it gets as far as meeting a host of priorities and not rocking the boat in the process.

If Colorado is willing to jump to the Big Ten then things could get really interesting on that front as well. What about this idea? Let's say CU wants the B1G's money, but they want something else to move the needle in their direction...the state politicians want a better deal for their state. CU agrees to jump to the B1G if Colorado State gets an invitation to a Power league. In the long run, the state of CO's population growth probably supports this sort of endeavor more so than a state like KS or some others.

And what if the B1G was asked to protect another school in a populous region in order to have their deal facilitated? Would they balk at a school like TCU? It's not a state flagship, but it has a lot of advantages and brings a lot of value to a Northern conference.

If the SEC took Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Colorado State

If the B1G took Oklahoma, Colorado, TCU, and Iowa State

At that point, both the SEC and B1G would stand at 18 and I don't think the ACC would balk at voting for an expanded postseason.

Ohio1317 has one of the more level heads on the board for a Big 10 poster. BadgerMJ is pretty sharp as well. Transyc usually drops in here and he has a good grasp of their viewpoints.

I think the best bet for CSU if Colorado defected would be the PAC. I really could see the PAC take T.C.U. and C.S.U. because those are markets they would love.

I mentioned Ohio1317 because he doesn't believe they would expand beyond 16 and I think that may be the SEC's thinking as well. Since the PAC and B1G are likely to partner up CSU to the PAC might be workable.

I would be very happy if we landed Texas and Kansas. Ecstatic if we landed Texas and Oklahoma. But landing Texas and Tech and not losing out on monopolizing a major state like we did in Florida would still be a huge win.

The Big 10 would not be thrilled with T.C.U. period. Small enrollment, not AAU, and not strong in research. Iowa State?

If they landed Oklahoma and Colorado and we did land Texas and Kansas, I could see the PAC taking Texas Tech as a bridge, T.C.U. for DFW, Colorado State for Denver, and possibly making the move for the Asian market like they've talked about by taking Hawaii. That's a lot of market to be picked up.

Then WVU to the ACC with N.D. eventually following makes sense.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State all get absorbed by the AAC in an upgrade.

Speaking of the B1G, how much do we really want to cooperate with their interests?

Let's say we were able to nail down Oklahoma and Kansas. I think those are pretty solid additions if we're going to 16. The big advantage there is we've cut off the B1G to the West...no shot at landing Texas if they can't move in their general direction. All their hopes lie in picking apart the ACC, but the odds of them going beyond 16 would be small so there's not a lot of economic weight they can accumulate with 2 additions in the East assuming one of them isn't Notre Dame.

Principally, unless they land one of OU or UT then their ability to upgrade is severely limited.

But you said earlier that there are plans to upgrade Texas Tech academically. That sounds suspiciously like something the PAC would want. If UT and Tech move to the PAC then a balance of priorities are met. They don't quite get the financial windfall of the SEC, but they don't have to admit to needing us either. They'll have a strong take home in a 14 team PAC. They also don't have to sign up for an unnatural fit in the ACC.

The PAC would give UT the flexibility to schedule rivalry games when they want and they can still keep the other local team in Tech which is something the B1G couldn't offer.

It's true that most of their major rivals would be in the SEC, but that also creates a problem as their odds of making the CFP and winning championships are reduced given the incredible strength of the conference. In short, they'll also be more competitive in the PAC and perhaps that's an undervalued commodity in these decisions.

For Oklahoma, I'm sure they want Oklahoma State involved, but what if no one is willing to take them? OU is not going to stay in the Big 12 based on that so the question comes down to what the better deal is. If the SEC is wiling to take Kansas then I can't see how the SEC isn't a better deal. They may not have a choice other than to separate from OSU.

(09-05-2018 09:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think that Texas and Texas Tech moving to the SEC is about as simple as it gets as far as meeting a host of priorities and not rocking the boat in the process.

If Colorado is willing to jump to the Big Ten then things could get really interesting on that front as well. What about this idea? Let's say CU wants the B1G's money, but they want something else to move the needle in their direction...the state politicians want a better deal for their state. CU agrees to jump to the B1G if Colorado State gets an invitation to a Power league. In the long run, the state of CO's population growth probably supports this sort of endeavor more so than a state like KS or some others.

And what if the B1G was asked to protect another school in a populous region in order to have their deal facilitated? Would they balk at a school like TCU? It's not a state flagship, but it has a lot of advantages and brings a lot of value to a Northern conference.

If the SEC took Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Colorado State

If the B1G took Oklahoma, Colorado, TCU, and Iowa State

At that point, both the SEC and B1G would stand at 18 and I don't think the ACC would balk at voting for an expanded postseason.

Ohio1317 has one of the more level heads on the board for a Big 10 poster. BadgerMJ is pretty sharp as well. Transyc usually drops in here and he has a good grasp of their viewpoints.

I think the best bet for CSU if Colorado defected would be the PAC. I really could see the PAC take T.C.U. and C.S.U. because those are markets they would love.

I mentioned Ohio1317 because he doesn't believe they would expand beyond 16 and I think that may be the SEC's thinking as well. Since the PAC and B1G are likely to partner up CSU to the PAC might be workable.

I would be very happy if we landed Texas and Kansas. Ecstatic if we landed Texas and Oklahoma. But landing Texas and Tech and not losing out on monopolizing a major state like we did in Florida would still be a huge win.

The Big 10 would not be thrilled with T.C.U. period. Small enrollment, not AAU, and not strong in research. Iowa State?

If they landed Oklahoma and Colorado and we did land Texas and Kansas, I could see the PAC taking Texas Tech as a bridge, T.C.U. for DFW, Colorado State for Denver, and possibly making the move for the Asian market like they've talked about by taking Hawaii. That's a lot of market to be picked up.

Then WVU to the ACC with N.D. eventually following makes sense.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State all get absorbed by the AAC in an upgrade.

Speaking of the B1G, how much do we really want to cooperate with their interests?

Let's say we were able to nail down Oklahoma and Kansas. I think those are pretty solid additions if we're going to 16. The big advantage there is we've cut off the B1G to the West...no shot at landing Texas if they can't move in their general direction. All their hopes lie in picking apart the ACC, but the odds of them going beyond 16 would be small so there's not a lot of economic weight they can accumulate with 2 additions in the East assuming one of them isn't Notre Dame.

Principally, unless they land one of OU or UT then their ability to upgrade is severely limited.

But you said earlier that there are plans to upgrade Texas Tech academically. That sounds suspiciously like something the PAC would want. If UT and Tech move to the PAC then a balance of priorities are met. They don't quite get the financial windfall of the SEC, but they don't have to admit to needing us either. They'll have a strong take home in a 14 team PAC. They also don't have to sign up for an unnatural fit in the ACC.

The PAC would give UT the flexibility to schedule rivalry games when they want and they can still keep the other local team in Tech which is something the B1G couldn't offer.

It's true that most of their major rivals would be in the SEC, but that also creates a problem as their odds of making the CFP and winning championships are reduced given the incredible strength of the conference. In short, they'll also be more competitive in the PAC and perhaps that's an undervalued commodity in these decisions.

For Oklahoma, I'm sure they want Oklahoma State involved, but what if no one is willing to take them? OU is not going to stay in the Big 12 based on that so the question comes down to what the better deal is. If the SEC is wiling to take Kansas then I can't see how the SEC isn't a better deal. They may not have a choice other than to separate from OSU.

The biggest obstacle for Texas to head to the PAC would be money. They'll make less even with their addition factored in. They get 35 million from the Big 12 and 15 million more for the LHN. Texas is making 50 million for all tiers of TV revenue. The PAC for all 3 tiers is paying 32 million. So Texas joining the PAC would essentially add about 3 million per each PAC school and addition so they would be making 15 million less (the LHN money). If they joined for football only with the ACC and kept the LHN they would only lose about 5 million per year with the bump up their presence would give to the ACC football revenue.

As for championships, when was the last time they won one in the major three sports in the Big 12? 2008 for football, and maybe one between then and now for baseball.

There are only two other conferences that Texas could join where the payouts would be as profitable or more, the SEC or Big 10.

I fully expect the OSU issue to be the most difficult one for any future conference home to deal with with regard to Oklahoma. That political pressure is going to be real.

It's another reason that Kansas and Texas will be better choices for either the SEC or Big 10. When you speak of contiguity there is only a slither of the Oklahoma panhandle separating Kansas from Texas. In other words not much.The same is true for the lower right corner of Colorado. So either Kansas or Colorado could be used to justify a move on to Texas for the Big 10.