From ESPN yesterday:

The Presidents are now "supportive" of renewing the game

Also, here's the original article from the Austin American Statesman:

Presidents get together with editors from the newspaper

They'll end up burying the hatchet because it's a money issue if nothing else. That's the way it always works.

(01-20-2019 11:00 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  From ESPN yesterday:

The Presidents are now "supportive" of renewing the game

Also, here's the original article from the Austin American Statesman:

Presidents get together with editors from the newspaper

They'll end up burying the hatchet because it's a money issue if nothing else. That's the way it always works.

And so the thaw begins.

Thing is, the PR people have long publically said “they want it back” though note that our presidents tone was more “maybe but no time soon”

But they know perfectly well the big money boosters and most of the fan bases will have their heads if they are the first one to publically say “we would like for you to play us again”

It’ll be at least another decade if not longer before a series is scheduled

And count me in the group of “never play them ever again”

They got the conference they wanted so badly full of irrelevant puppets with nowhere else to go so they have to give them whatever they want out of pure survival......you made your own bed now lie in it.

You don’t deserve an annual big time SEC rivalry matchup that you desperately need to sell season tickets and put butts into your big empty stadium that doesn’t give two craps about Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia or Kansas or any other conference mate not named OU (which will never be a home game)

(01-20-2019 01:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thing is, the PR people have long publically said “they want it back” though note that our presidents tone was more “maybe but no time soon”

But they know perfectly well the big money boosters and most of the fan bases will have their heads if they are the first one to publically say “we would like for you to play us again”

It’ll be at least another decade if not longer before a series is scheduled

And count me in the group of “never play them ever again”

They got the conference they wanted so badly full of irrelevant puppets with nowhere else to go so they have to give them whatever they want out of pure survival......you made your own bed now lie in it.

You don’t deserve an annual big time SEC rivalry matchup that you desperately need to sell season tickets and put butts into your big empty stadium that doesn’t give two craps about Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia or Kansas or any other conference mate not named OU (which will never be a home game)

The tone doesn't sound like "maybe" or "we'll look at it down the road."

Quote:"It's a storied rivalry," Texas president Greg Fenves said during the interview with the Statesman. "We've told our ADs to figure out a plan and bring it to us."

I don't know what else needs to be said.

There is the obvious reality that a lot of games have already been scheduled for the next several years so it's not like the return is imminent. Nonetheless, it's clear both parties want the game. The coaches have said it, the ADs have said it, and now the Presidents take an opportunity to say it while sitting together during a special interview with a major state paper.

I know the meeting was about more than football, but that just seals it for me. The A&M President wants more funding for his school and I'm sure he'd like the support of the UT President in obtaining it. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat and a transaction between any two parties could involve a variety of considerations. UT needs that game more than A&M, I understand, and A&M needs more funding for their everyday operations.

I'm not saying it's a straight trade, just pointing out that financial incentives can take a number of forms.

I understand there are factions of each fan base that deeply despise the other university, but I have a very hard time believing that represents the majority sentiment or that it will dominate the decision making. For one, what are fans going to do if the game is rescheduled? Not buy tickets?

I just don't buy that heads will roll if the Presidents make it happen. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if a contract or two is bought out sooner than later just so they can get the ball rolling.

The broader reality here is that the state of Texas and it's powerful institutions will benefit if a game is renewed between the two flagship universities. Both schools will benefit as well.

(01-20-2019 03:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 01:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thing is, the PR people have long publically said “they want it back” though note that our presidents tone was more “maybe but no time soon”

But they know perfectly well the big money boosters and most of the fan bases will have their heads if they are the first one to publically say “we would like for you to play us again”

It’ll be at least another decade if not longer before a series is scheduled

And count me in the group of “never play them ever again”

They got the conference they wanted so badly full of irrelevant puppets with nowhere else to go so they have to give them whatever they want out of pure survival......you made your own bed now lie in it.

You don’t deserve an annual big time SEC rivalry matchup that you desperately need to sell season tickets and put butts into your big empty stadium that doesn’t give two craps about Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia or Kansas or any other conference mate not named OU (which will never be a home game)

The tone doesn't sound like "maybe" or "we'll look at it down the road."

Quote:"It's a storied rivalry," Texas president Greg Fenves said during the interview with the Statesman. "We've told our ADs to figure out a plan and bring it to us."

I don't know what else needs to be said.

There is the obvious reality that a lot of games have already been scheduled for the next several years so it's not like the return is imminent. Nonetheless, it's clear both parties want the game. The coaches have said it, the ADs have said it, and now the Presidents take an opportunity to say it while sitting together during a special interview with a major state paper.

I know the meeting was about more than football, but that just seals it for me. The A&M President wants more funding for his school and I'm sure he'd like the support of the UT President in obtaining it. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat and a transaction between any two parties could involve a variety of considerations. UT needs that game more than A&M, I understand, and A&M needs more funding for their everyday operations.

I'm not saying it's a straight trade, just pointing out that financial incentives can take a number of forms.

I understand there are factions of each fan base that deeply despise the other university, but I have a very hard time believing that represents the majority sentiment or that it will dominate the decision making. For one, what are fans going to do if the game is rescheduled? Not buy tickets?

I just don't buy that heads will roll if the Presidents make it happen. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if a contract or two is bought out sooner than later just so they can get the ball rolling.

The broader reality here is that the state of Texas and it's powerful institutions will benefit if a game is renewed between the two flagship universities. Both schools will benefit as well.

UT will benefit massively

A&M would not at all

Tom Herman openly admitted it when he said “we don’t play any rivals at home”

And we are not UT-San Antonio. We don’t need UT to get us funding like some like weak little brother asking for big brother to go to mom and get us quarters to go play at the Arcade. Our share of the PUF is guaranteed by law and we already fund more research than anyone else in the state all on our own.

I get that a lot of people think life will great if only we’d Play this game but that ignores reality. In our last game a UT fan reffing the game intentionally rescued them at the last second with a BS penalty to give them the win. Just recently they caught the guy who sent that racist letter to Kevin Sumlin and low and behold it was a UT grad pretending to be one of our fans to try and sully our name with recruits.

They are cancer pure and simple.

I hope we never play them ever again

I'd like to see them play again, at least every two or three years. Maybe yearly again at first, is too problematic. While I am not in the State of Texas and don't have strong emotions about the old rivalry. I enjoyed watching the game on Thanksgiving weekend. It's good for college football.
Texas A&M can benefit more by winning the game. Nail down those bragging rights. I would think, also, renewing in basketball and baseball would be positive as well.
Those P5 inter-conference games are some of the best to watch. And geographically, the schools are real close, and something intense is missing when they don't play.
Now, if the SEC is serious about landing Texas several years from now over competing conferences, A&M & UT playing again would help in that effort.
Concur with 10thMoutain on the point that UT needs the game moreso than A&M when it comes to home scheduling.

(01-20-2019 01:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Thing is, the PR people have long publically said “they want it back” though note that our presidents tone was more “maybe but no time soon”

But they know perfectly well the big money boosters and most of the fan bases will have their heads if they are the first one to publically say “we would like for you to play us again”

It’ll be at least another decade if not longer before a series is scheduled

And count me in the group of “never play them ever again”

They got the conference they wanted so badly full of irrelevant puppets with nowhere else to go so they have to give them whatever they want out of pure survival......you made your own bed now lie in it.

You don’t deserve an annual big time SEC rivalry matchup that you desperately need to sell season tickets and put butts into your big empty stadium that doesn’t give two craps about Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia or Kansas or any other conference mate not named OU (which will never be a home game)

Bro, I don't know what to tell you, but your President is about to ask for more money:

Quote:Young said he plans to ask for an additional $55 million to raise A&M’s funding per student closer to UT’s. He said rising enrollment at the College Station campus has put it behind. He also expressed concern about a tuition waiver that the state’s public institutions of higher learning are required to give veterans and their dependents. That costs A&M $22 million a year, all but $3 million of that for dependents. Young said that has forced the university to charge tuition $400 to $500 a year higher than it would otherwise, which he likened to a tax on other students.

Fenves would like to see lawmakers boost the payout from an account earmarked for research at both schools. Both legislative chambers are calling for UT to get about $55 million for the biennium and A&M about $70 million, about what they received for the current biennium.

So my point about a quid pro quo is relevant regardless of what either school is getting from PUF.

BTW, I never said A&M needed to beg anyone for anything. I said they are in a position of strength and that allows for a transaction that benefits both schools. I'm sure the game is only part of it. The point is that it benefits both schools to work together and that includes athletic cooperation.

I disagree that A&M doesn't benefit from renewing this rivalry. I do agree that Texas needs the game more than you do, but that doesn't mean A&M doesn't benefit. A&M will generate more revenue with UT on the schedule for one, but a closer working relationship will be good for the state as a whole.

Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

If those tea leaves are telling any truths that Texas was pondering a SEC move, one would have to hope Sankey goes all out after OU to round the conference out would be the next step or goal.

The matchups and first tier rights alone would mouth watering to any broadcaster.

(01-20-2019 11:21 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

If those tea leaves are telling any truths that Texas was pondering a SEC move, one would have to hope Sankey goes all out after OU to round the conference out would be the next step or goal.

The matchups and first tier rights alone would mouth watering to any broadcaster.

True. Whether that happens or not may be a big tell as to whether FOX and ESPN are working together on this or not.

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma (to the B1G).

...But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that [the SEC] might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

JR, you know I basically agree with this and I hope it happens just as you laid out here... one question though: to dissolve the Big XII GoR takes 8 votes if I'm not mistaken, but this is only 5... would the SEC, B1G and ACC all grow to 17 in order to take one more each? (If so, that definitely spells the end of divisions!) If so, who else would they take?

(01-21-2019 12:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma (to the B1G).

...But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that [the SEC] might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

JR, you know I basically agree with this and I hope it happens just as you laid out here... one question though: to dissolve the Big XII GoR takes 8 votes if I'm not mistaken, but this is only 5... would the SEC, B1G and ACC all grow to 17 in order to take one more each? (If so, that definitely spells the end of divisions!) If so, who else would they take?

Just my thoughts, but I don't think 17 would be an option.

I think the networks would try to get creative with the contract.

Let's say the remainders of the Big 12 were TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State. Let's also say they used the Big 12 branding to acquire a few G5s with promise.

I'd choose Houston, Memphis, UCF, USF, Cincinnati, UConn, and BYU.

Now, you've got a pretty solid 12. They could guarantee the current rate to the original 5 until the end of their contract. Offer a prorated amount to the incoming 7. I would think that'd make everybody happy.

The remnants of the Big 12 will hate the departure of Texas and Oklahoma, but they have to see the writing on the wall. There's no way those 2 are sticking around for another contract which means the gravy train is coming to an end one way or the other.

With this arrangement, they still get paid what they've been promised and they get exit fees to boost the bottom line. They still get a reasonably solid Big 12 to be a part of that should be paid fairly decent in the next round.

If they hold out until the contract is up then Texas and Oklahoma are leaving anyway and the networks have no motivation to help them find stable footing.

(01-21-2019 12:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma (to the B1G).

...But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that [the SEC] might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

JR, you know I basically agree with this and I hope it happens just as you laid out here... one question though: to dissolve the Big XII GoR takes 8 votes if I'm not mistaken, but this is only 5... would the SEC, B1G and ACC all grow to 17 in order to take one more each? (If so, that definitely spells the end of divisions!) If so, who else would they take?

Well Mark the simple answer is the SEC and ACC would have to move to 18 because the B1G couldn't help given their parameters.

T.C.U. and Baylor to the ACC to put you in that market would take care of two. Would the SEC take KState and Okie State? I know if we did that the Sooners would be truly pissed. Nothing could hurt them more than Okie State and Texas in the SEC while they are stuck in the Great white North.

The only legitimate possibility that I see to place 8 would be for the PAC to get involved.

But remember this. GOR damages are based on actual losses for the contracted period of time. No conference can exist below 8 members for more than a couple of years in which to grow back to the required 10. Half of the Big 12 would be gone. Let's say this stays under wraps until 2022 and notice is given for 2023&4. That fulfills the Big 12's requirements for two years prior notification. If FOX and ESPN pay the remaining 5 schools the full value of the Big 12 contract there are no damages for the duration of the contract. The 5 that are departing would all owe exit fees. The five remaining pocket that money. After that the first 5 are free.

Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

Look for Texas to go ahead and schedule a few more out of conference matchups soon

(01-21-2019 02:30 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Look for Texas to go ahead and schedule a few more out of conference matchups soon

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

Yes, I do think it would benefit the SEC tremendously to have all the power teams in the state of Texas that it's worth passing on KU/OU.

The two quibbles I have are the idea that the remaining Big 12 would be out of the power group and the future of the RRR.

I think the Big 12 may end up with continuing to have a seat on the table, just not an automatic bid. What we might see is that the remaining Big 12 would be put into a pool that has the other G programs, Army, UMass, Liberty and that small Catholic school in Indiana. You might see the PAC and ACC float up or down, depending on how strong the programs are at any time. Those factors may leave enough breathing room for the small Indiana Catholic school to maintain their current status or maybe a tweak like, say, adding a sixth game with the ACC. That would make sense if scheduling opponents becomes even tougher in the future but not so tough to force a conference decision. If the playoff won't expand then the other programs I mentioned would fight to have a shot at taking a spot in the top four, even if seemingly unlikely today. West Virginia to the ACC does make some sense in terms of content. That would take them to fifteen (sixteen in basketball).

A new divisional format would allow the ACC to break into three groups of five, if they wish so.

Quote:Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

The last point is the RRR. As the Big Ten plays a 9-game schedule and the SEC an 8-game schedule, when you add the in-state rivalry games, a national game for exposure purposes and a scheduled body bag game, there's a chance that the RRR wouldn't be played annually from then on. UT would essentially be sacrificing one game to play annually with TAMU and OU sacrificing one game to renew the UNL rivalry annually. It may still be worth it in the long run but that would be another marked change after a series of marked changes in the last realignment craze.

(01-22-2019 02:15 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

Yes, I do think it would benefit the SEC tremendously to have all the power teams in the state of Texas that it's worth passing on KU/OU.

The two quibbles I have are the idea that the remaining Big 12 would be out of the power group and the future of the RRR.

I think the Big 12 may end up with continuing to have a seat on the table, just not an automatic bid. What we might see is that the remaining Big 12 would be put into a pool that has the other G programs, Army, UMass, Liberty and that small Catholic school in Indiana. You might see the PAC and ACC float up or down, depending on how strong the programs are at any time. Those factors may leave enough breathing room for the small Indiana Catholic school to maintain their current status or maybe a tweak like, say, adding a sixth game with the ACC. That would make sense if scheduling opponents becomes even tougher in the future but not so tough to force a conference decision. If the playoff won't expand then the other programs I mentioned would fight to have a shot at taking a spot in the top four, even if seemingly unlikely today. West Virginia to the ACC does make some sense in terms of content. That would take them to fifteen (sixteen in basketball).

A new divisional format would allow the ACC to break into three groups of five, if they wish so.

Quote:Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

The last point is the RRR. As the Big Ten plays a 9-game schedule and the SEC an 8-game schedule, when you add the in-state rivalry games, a national game for exposure purposes and a scheduled body bag game, there's a chance that the RRR wouldn't be played annually from then on. UT would essentially be sacrificing one game to play annually with TAMU and OU sacrificing one game to renew the UNL rivalry annually. It may still be worth it in the long run but that would be another marked change after a series of marked changes in the last realignment craze.

First quibble: Yes, it would be very reminiscent of the Big East's situation and I agree that the Big 12 might be reformed and given at least a NY6 slot if not a far flung shot at the CFP. So that's quite possible.

Second quibble: No I don't think OU would give up the RRR. Recruiting Texas is too vital to them to consider it. I feel strongly that if the SEC moved to 16 we would have 9 conference games as well. I also don't think the 3 rent a kill games continue. I feel reasonably confident in saying that in the not too distant future the push for content will take us to 10 P games with two buy slots to guarantee every P4 member 7 home games, or at least 6 home and 1 neutral site game.

What I think will eventually happen is that the bowls will be moved to the first games of the season in what amounts to a last weekend of Summer event. They won't be called bowls per se but the same venues might be employed. That way the old bowl system keeps the largess of being a host but with the benefit of being the season opener and not the season ender. That way both participants fan bases are energized and the NET effect for the host city will be better crowds and more interest. This will essentially become the 13th game of the regular season.

From the end of conference CCG's until January 1st we have the CFP. The top bowls are utilized here.

So 1 kickoff P game for each P school in a neutral site, followed by 10 P games 9 of which are conference games, and 2 G5 home only games will be the regular season an the CFP will have the season's end all to itself.

(01-21-2019 03:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 02:30 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Look for Texas to go ahead and schedule a few more out of conference matchups soon

Seriously though, I feel like they said this exact thing a year ago and then went out and scheduled home and homes with Alabama and Notre Dame. Seems like they want to keep kicking the can as long as possible.

(01-22-2019 10:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:35 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 02:30 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Look for Texas to go ahead and schedule a few more out of conference matchups soon

Seriously though, I feel like they said this exact thing a year ago and then went out and scheduled home and homes with Alabama and Notre Dame. Seems like they want to keep kicking the can as long as possible.

It's funny because it's TRUE.

(01-22-2019 03:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:15 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-20-2019 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Interesting things here:

1. Presidents don't meet to work out playing. A.D.'s do.

2. Texas's intransigence broke 1 week after FOX drops the Big 12 championship game.

3. Kansas has been hard at work to upgrade football.

4. ESPN wants Texas in full somewhere as badly as they want Notre Dame.

5. A move to a P4 with emphasis on champs only in the 4 team playoff forces N.D. all in. And Delany wants an emphasis on champions being selected.

6. FOX wants to boost the content value for the sake of their investment in the Big 10.

7. If FOX's dropping of the Big 12 CCG was a shot across the bow of the Big 12 then it is highly likely that they and ESPN are working for an early resolution to the Big 12 question and they need each other's cooperation to get it. Why?

A. They don't want FAANG interference.
B. If the Big 10, SEC, or ACC add properties before the expiration of the current contracts they can revalue the contracts to a current rate, extend the contracts for at least a decade, and by doing so can lock the FAANG's out of this current cycle which buys the networks more time to get their streaming endeavors up to snuff.
C. Extending by a decade or until 2035 puts the Big 10 and SEC expiration of contracts coming up 2 years prior to the next ACC expiration. That sets up similar opportunities to renegotiate ahead of time in a decade.
D. They need each other to payout the contracts of the Big 12 in order to mitigate damages. By doing so they blunt the penalties of the G.O.R. and let those leaving do so for essentially the exit fees.

I would like to think that the SEC has a shot at Texas and Kansas as a pair because of the value that combination would bring. I subsequently think that FOX may have insisted on Oklahoma. But if Texas wants to protect Tech it is possible that we might wind up with Texas and Tech while Oklahoma and Kansas head to the Big 10, and West Virginia and Notre Dame go in with the ACC.

8. President's meet to discuss larger business matters. To avoid improper contact about membership in the past A&M spoke through Gene Stallings to Alabama contacts. Missouri used Bernie Machen at Florida to do the same. It would be very easy for the presidents of two state schools to do the same. If this had just been a presser with the A.D.'s I wouldn't have thought a thing about it.

Yes, I do think it would benefit the SEC tremendously to have all the power teams in the state of Texas that it's worth passing on KU/OU.

The two quibbles I have are the idea that the remaining Big 12 would be out of the power group and the future of the RRR.

I think the Big 12 may end up with continuing to have a seat on the table, just not an automatic bid. What we might see is that the remaining Big 12 would be put into a pool that has the other G programs, Army, UMass, Liberty and that small Catholic school in Indiana. You might see the PAC and ACC float up or down, depending on how strong the programs are at any time. Those factors may leave enough breathing room for the small Indiana Catholic school to maintain their current status or maybe a tweak like, say, adding a sixth game with the ACC. That would make sense if scheduling opponents becomes even tougher in the future but not so tough to force a conference decision. If the playoff won't expand then the other programs I mentioned would fight to have a shot at taking a spot in the top four, even if seemingly unlikely today. West Virginia to the ACC does make some sense in terms of content. That would take them to fifteen (sixteen in basketball).

A new divisional format would allow the ACC to break into three groups of five, if they wish so.

Quote:Also the remaining 5 that receive the exit fees, while not happy will want to keep these games on their schedules: KState / Kansas, OSU / Oklahoma, Any Texas School / A&M, Tech, & Texas. Iowa State wouldn't raise a ruckus because they need Iowa to be compliant. So protecting enough OOC games that these schools may continue to have money making dates on their schedule would go a long way to keeping the political wrangling down. The three Texas state schools could rotate games with T.C.U. and Baylor who could also continue to play each other.

The last point is the RRR. As the Big Ten plays a 9-game schedule and the SEC an 8-game schedule, when you add the in-state rivalry games, a national game for exposure purposes and a scheduled body bag game, there's a chance that the RRR wouldn't be played annually from then on. UT would essentially be sacrificing one game to play annually with TAMU and OU sacrificing one game to renew the UNL rivalry annually. It may still be worth it in the long run but that would be another marked change after a series of marked changes in the last realignment craze.

First quibble: Yes, it would be very reminiscent of the Big East's situation and I agree that the Big 12 might be reformed and given at least a NY6 slot if not a far flung shot at the CFP. So that's quite possible.

Second quibble: No I don't think OU would give up the RRR. Recruiting Texas is too vital to them to consider it. I feel strongly that if the SEC moved to 16 we would have 9 conference games as well. I also don't think the 3 rent a kill games continue. I feel reasonably confident in saying that in the not too distant future the push for content will take us to 10 P games with two buy slots to guarantee every P4 member 7 home games, or at least 6 home and 1 neutral site game.

What I think will eventually happen is that the bowls will be moved to the first games of the season in what amounts to a last weekend of Summer event. They won't be called bowls per se but the same venues might be employed. That way the old bowl system keeps the largess of being a host but with the benefit of being the season opener and not the season ender. That way both participants fan bases are energized and the NET effect for the host city will be better crowds and more interest. This will essentially become the 13th game of the regular season.

From the end of conference CCG's until January 1st we have the CFP. The top bowls are utilized here.

So 1 kickoff P game for each P school in a neutral site, followed by 10 P games 9 of which are conference games, and 2 G5 home only games will be the regular season an the CFP will have the season's end all to itself.

So for Oklahoma, the schedule going forward becomes
9 Big Ten games (including Nebraska) - alternating 5 home/4 away with 4/5
Bedlam - alternating home/away to give 5 home annually
RRR - 1 neutral site game
G5 - 1 buy home game to give them a 6th home annually

So basically OU never gets a 7th home game UNLESS the schedule expands to 13 - in which case they may end up playing a home game while everyone else plays a kickoff game.