If fine with ending the farce of "student-athletes", PROVIDED their games are forbidden from taking place on campus, using campus resources.

JR essentially argues that academics should not matter in conference realignment. To that end, he's probably correct.

When others argue that it DOES matter, they're not wrong. Should and do don't always correlate.

(03-27-2020 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR essentially argues that academics should not matter in conference realignment. To that end, he's probably correct.

When others argue that it DOES matter, they're not wrong. Should and do don't always correlate.

I never understood the logic behind Academic conferences.. Academics should be held across the board regardless of conference affiliation. Conferences should be for sports imo.

(03-27-2020 11:48 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  JR essentially argues that academics should not matter in conference realignment. To that end, he's probably correct.

When others argue that it DOES matter, they're not wrong. Should and do don't always correlate.

Academic presidents still make the decisions as of now.

The Big Ten has still never accepted a non AAU school. Nebraska did lose AAU status after it got accepted and there was talk about them losing AAU status at the time and presidents that voted for their entry into the Big Ten voted them out of the AAU but still no non AAU school has been accepted in the Big Ten.

Texas to the SEC makes all the geographic sense and all the athletic sense in the world. Why hasn't it happened? There is a perceived academic bias against the SEC by Texas. There shouldn't be if UT is staying in the Big 12. On average they are worse academically than the SEC. If Texas wants to move to the Big Ten or Pac 12 and cite academics as a reason, that's fine.

Louisville to the ACC certainly is a sign that academics doesn't matter. Is it the norm or the exception though? I know a few here who think West Virginia is destined for the ACC. That would really be throwing academics out the window. Oklahoma would be at the bottom of the Big Ten academically but they wouldn't be too far below Nebraska and they bring a lot of positives with their football. West Virginia's negatives are a lot higher and their positives aren't anywhere near as high as Oklahoma's. There are plenty of Big 12 schools Stanford would object to in the Pac 12. Now it only takes 9 of 12 schools to gain admittance into the Pac 12 but if all four California schools vote in a block they can veto any Big 12 school that doesn't pass the academics muster. Eventually the mighty dollar will take precedence. If a school is as valuable financially as Oklahoma, school presidents likely will overlook academic deficiencies. They won't for a borderline case though. Maybe we are entering a stage where academics won't matter in conference realignment and Louisville to the ACC is the norm and not the exception. I'm not going to turn the page yet.

Michigan State was admitted to the Big10 before they were in the AAU. I would venture that most of the Big10 universities were playing each other and formed the conference before the AAU was created. There is no doubt that academics is a criteria for conference membership, but the obsession with “AAU” seems exaggerated

11 of the current 14 BIG schools entered the conference before they joined the AAU...including MSU (1950 into BIG and 1964 into AAU) and OSU (1912 vs 1916).

In addition, if AAU is so important to the BIG, then why did Wisconsin and Michigan cast the critical votes kicking-out UNL (their brethren in the BIG) from the AAU.

Academics are a consideration in conference membership, but AAU membership would too rigid of a criteria.

(03-27-2020 05:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Michigan State was admitted to the Big10 before they were in the AAU. I would venture that most of the Big10 universities were playing each other and formed the conference before the AAU was created. There is no doubt that academics is a criteria for conference membership, but the obsession with “AAU” seems exaggerated

In the case of the Big 10 athletic and academics do matter because the Big 10 conference is also an Academic Consortium. It works because all members are Peer institutions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_...c_Alliance

In the case of the Airport Conference they could be very close to doing the same thing.

Consider best case scenario:
West: all 8 AAU schools - Washington, Oregon, Utah, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona.

The East is more problematic. But best case
East: Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri.... Then you have 3 more which are more problematic- Nebraska, Oklahoma, plus 1 more.

https://journalstar.com/news/local/educa...5acb4.html

"In the conference realignment scramble of 2010, the Big Ten cited Nebraska's athletic and academic credentials in making UNL its first new member in two decades. Delany and Perlman both said at the time Nebraska's AAU membership was a factor in the invitation."

Chicago Tribune, 2010:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct...story.html

"All the Big Ten schools are AAU members," Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman said. "I doubt that our application would've been accepted had we not been a member of the organization."

In the official release when Nebraska was accepted,

http://newsroom.unl.edu/releases/2010/06...Conference

"The Big Ten is the only NCAA Division I conference whose members all belong to the Association of American Universities, as does Nebraska."

(03-27-2020 06:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 05:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Michigan State was admitted to the Big10 before they were in the AAU. I would venture that most of the Big10 universities were playing each other and formed the conference before the AAU was created. There is no doubt that academics is a criteria for conference membership, but the obsession with “AAU” seems exaggerated

In the case of the Big 10 athletic and academics do matter because the Big 10 conference is also an Academic Consortium. It works because all members are Peer institutions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_...c_Alliance

In the case of the Airport Conference they could be very close to doing the same thing.

Consider best case scenario:
West: all 8 AAU schools - Washington, Oregon, Utah, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona.

The East is more problematic. But best case
East: Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri.... Then you have 3 more which are more problematic- Nebraska, Oklahoma, plus 1 more.

Missouri is free to leave if they wish but it won't happen and for another reason. In 2012 had the SEC been about to make what they are about to make in 2024 (low end 67 million per school) Missouri wouldn't have paid their way in. By 2024 the Big 10 will be in the mid 60 millions in revenue as well and the same story will be true. For that matter Kansas doesn't get in on their own steam with either conference but would be acceptable if traveling with one of the schools that would pay their way in, and there's only 3: Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma, in that order.

So don't look for the SEC or Big 10 to expand beyond 16, unless of course one of them lands both Oklahoma and Texas in which case it would reduce the NET gain but they could take two tag-alongs. Otherwise the math doesn't work.

Now if there was an opportunity to divide a larger conference with better market and academic additions then as long as the money was break even we might find a justification for such a move But that's not likely either.

Right now the only way I could see the Big 10 growing with more than 2 schools is if they picked up the core of the PAC. And the only way the SEC might do it is if they could pick up the core of the ACC.

But Texas isn't moving North. Nothing about it suits their business model or satisfies their fans. Plus they are under contract with ESPN until 2031 for the LHN.

So again that raises the question as to whether the Big 10 would add a school that can't pay their way in at 65 million (Kansas) and an academic outlier (Oklahoma)? I think if that is their option they'll wait in hopes of landing two of North Carolina, Notre Dame and Virginia.

To be realistic, barring a dire situation, nobody but the California schools would leave the Pac. The rest need access to California alumni and recruits. Colorado is making less in TV revenue in the Pac 12 than if they had stayed, but they are still happy because they are getting contributions from California alumni.

Now could USC, UCLA and possibly Cal and Stanford decide to leave? That's possible.

Could there be an airport meeting? Only if it was lead by the California schools.

y'all do know that ESPN could always buy out the LHN if they saw fit to bundle Texas 3rd tier rights with the rest of the conference, right? I mean ESPN plus has signed a majority of the Big 12 third tier rights outside Texas (LHN) ok (landthieves network) and KS (Jayhawk sports.com or whatever). Texas is fine right now making it's 50 plus million a year TV money. I just hope if they do end up leaving, it would be out west or east with the SEC. Big 10 isn't a good fit imo

The only logical question to ask, which is pertinent, is this, "How could ESPN organize the Big 12 so that it could better profit by it?

How could ESPN augment the value of the SEC without making it too powerful?

How could ESPN win the cooperation of the Big 10 in keeping the 49% of their rights they now hold?

Which conference would it be easier to build an competitive conference around the Big 12, or the ACC?

Why? Because I don't believe the PAC does anything.

How? By making it more profitable for everyone.

How do you organize those conferences? In 3 divisions of 6.

Big 12:
Baylor, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

What does this give them? The New England market over to Ohio and renews old rivalries. It picks up large individual markets in Atlanta and Miami both in recruiting hotbeds and Louisville and Syracuse give Kansas some basketball rivals.

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

What does this give them? 3 academic bluebloods, the Virginia and North Carolina markets, and a top 3 football brand which shores up their advertising rates in the Northern cities, while having national exposure.

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

What does this give them? The two most SEC like schools increasing football content further, and the markets of North Carolina and Virginia.

The Big 10 gains valuation ground, but the SEC gets stronger within its region and adds 20 million potential viewers. Texas and Oklahoma get some more exposure more than double their market population, and still feature Oklahoma and Texas football, Kansas basketball with more support from Louisville and Syracuse, and Texas plays in a division that permits them to keep their business model totally intact while gaining exposure in two recruit rich states.

What does ESPN get? 4 truly regional football champions most years. No longer does the Southeast dominate with 2 or even 3 slots in the CFP. The PAC has a champ, the Big 10 has a champ, the Big 12 has a champ, and the SEC produces only 1 champ as well.

So why does the SEC go for this? It maintains its rivalries, it gets them, it makes them more money, and it maintains their brand and identity.

So ESPN finally has a CFP that draws all 4 regions of the country into the first round.

Each conference has 3 division champs and 1 at large school which helps keep fan bases motivated deeper into the season and allows for a conference semi-final

Special allowances are made for the PAC which keeps a 2 division format and only has a CCG.

Wake Forest gets a partial deal with ESPN showing their T3 on ESPN+ but they are guaranteed annual games with each of the North Carolina schools and Georgia Tech and Virginia and alternating games with Clemson and South Carolina.

An airport meeting is unlikely...but fun to speculate. If USC could convince UCLA and Stanford to explore their options, then things could get serious. UT-Austin and Oklahoma athletic departments carry a lot of weight and could collaborate in forming a new conference.

Getting these 5 schools AD aligned would do the trick. The California schools don’t want to get too far behind the BIG or SEC. Their current approach is getting them further behind in resources and championships, in the money making sports. The Cali schools can still be the core of a major conference if they expand the footprint with powerhouses like UT and OK.

TX and OK have options for making more money...such as just joining the SEC or BIG. Nevertheless, working with Cali schools can allow them to increase their revenues while maintaining their successful business model.

The 5 schools meet at an airport and develop the ground rules:
1) Cali schools get to select 2 more members of their conference than the Texahoma combo
2) Texahoma schools get to select whichever schools they need to be comfortable with creating a new conference
3) The new conference has to generate substantially higher TV revenues for the founding 5 than either PAC or B12 could

Potential 12 team conference:
East- TX, OK, TT, Baylor, OSU, ASU
West- USC, UCLA, Stan, WA, Cal, AZ

Potential 14 team conference adds
East- KS
West- OR

(03-27-2020 10:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  An airport meeting is unlikely...but fun to speculate. If USC could convince UCLA and Stanford to explore their options, then things could get serious. UT-Austin and Oklahoma athletic departments carry a lot of weight and could collaborate in forming a new conference.

Getting these 5 schools AD aligned would do the trick. The California schools don’t want to get too far behind the BIG or SEC. Their current approach is getting them further behind in resources and championships, in the money making sports. The Cali schools can still be the core of a major conference if they expand the footprint with powerhouses like UT and OK.

TX and OK have options for making more money...such as just joining the SEC or BIG. Nevertheless, working with Cali schools can allow them to increase their revenues while maintaining their successful business model.

The 5 schools meet at an airport and develop the ground rules:
1) Cali schools get to select 2 more members of their conference than the Texahoma combo
2) Texahoma schools get to select whichever schools they need to be comfortable with creating a new conference
3) The new conference has to generate substantially higher TV revenues for the founding 5 than either PAC or B12 could

Potential 12 team conference:
East- TX, OK, TT, Baylor, OSU, ASU
West- USC, UCLA, Stan, WA, Cal, AZ

Potential 14 team conference adds
East- KS
West- OR

If you are going to go that route just start with the 12 AAU schools and add the best value from the rest until you get to 16:

Arizona, California, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Texas, Utah, Washington

Next best in Value: Arizona State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech (because of Texas)

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, U.S.C., Stanford, Washington
East: Iowa St., Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Both the Big 12 and PAC 12 GOR's expire in 2025. They can arrange the conference as they please without fear of legal entanglements.

(03-27-2020 10:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 10:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  An airport meeting is unlikely...but fun to speculate. If USC could convince UCLA and Stanford to explore their options, then things could get serious. UT-Austin and Oklahoma athletic departments carry a lot of weight and could collaborate in forming a new conference.

Getting these 5 schools AD aligned would do the trick. The California schools don’t want to get too far behind the BIG or SEC. Their current approach is getting them further behind in resources and championships, in the money making sports. The Cali schools can still be the core of a major conference if they expand the footprint with powerhouses like UT and OK.

TX and OK have options for making more money...such as just joining the SEC or BIG. Nevertheless, working with Cali schools can allow them to increase their revenues while maintaining their successful business model.

The 5 schools meet at an airport and develop the ground rules:
1) Cali schools get to select 2 more members of their conference than the Texahoma combo
2) Texahoma schools get to select whichever schools they need to be comfortable with creating a new conference
3) The new conference has to generate substantially higher TV revenues for the founding 5 than either PAC or B12 could

Potential 12 team conference:
East- TX, OK, TT, Baylor, OSU, ASU
West- USC, UCLA, Stan, WA, Cal, AZ

Potential 14 team conference adds
East- KS
West- OR

If you are going to go that route just start with the 12 AAU schools and add the best value from the rest until you get to 16:

Arizona, California, California Los Angeles, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Oregon, Southern California, Stanford, Texas, Utah, Washington

Next best in Value: Arizona State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech (because of Texas)

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, U.C.L.A., Oregon, U.S.C., Stanford, Washington
East: Iowa St., Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Both the Big 12 and PAC 12 GOR's expire in 2025. They can arrange the conference as they please without fear of legal entanglements.

The 5 high value schools (TX, OK, USC, UCLA and Stanford) aren’t interested in an academic alliance. They are creating the athletic conference that best helps them to create more value. They need schools that generate rivalries and passion among their fans. They need schools that have TV viewership. Their business models are what needs to be developed.

AAU membership is a nice resume builder, but it is not the driving force for forming this conference. A school like Colorado would be fine in the BIG (they are somewhere between UMD and Rutgers in creating value...they are all sole flagship AAU schools) and the BIG can afford to subsidize 50 years to help Colorado potentially develop a strong athletic department. AAU membership does not help any of the founding 5 athletic departments to grow their value.

Either of the small private schools in Texas (Baylor or TCU) have a better shot of winning a lottery ticket to the new conference. UT-Austin successfully builds its value by playing more games in Texas. At a minimum, UT-Austin needs 2 other TX schools plus OK in the new conference.

Also, the conference size needs to start smaller than either the BIG or SEC. The Big12 has a solid revenue advantage, compared to the ACC or PAC, because it doesn’t have to share TV revenue with too many schools. This new conference is not meant to start as a perfect peer of the SEC or PAC. It first needs to build cohesion which occurs by playing more games against each other.

(03-27-2020 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Missouri is free to leave if they wish but it won't happen and for another reason.

Would anyone in the SEC mind if Missouri left? I don't think so.

I also don't think anyone in the SEC minds having them either. Nobody is clamoring to get them to leave, they are just a "blah" addition to the conference. Indifference reigns.

(03-27-2020 10:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The only logical question to ask, which is pertinent, is this, "How could ESPN organize the Big 12 so that it could better profit by it?

How could ESPN augment the value of the SEC without making it too powerful?

How could ESPN win the cooperation of the Big 10 in keeping the 49% of their rights they now hold?

Which conference would it be easier to build an competitive conference around the Big 12, or the ACC?

Why? Because I don't believe the PAC does anything.

How? By making it more profitable for everyone.

How do you organize those conferences? In 3 divisions of 6.

Big 12:
Baylor, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

What does this give them? The New England market over to Ohio and renews old rivalries. It picks up large individual markets in Atlanta and Miami both in recruiting hotbeds and Louisville and Syracuse give Kansas some basketball rivals.

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

What does this give them? 3 academic bluebloods, the Virginia and North Carolina markets, and a top 3 football brand which shores up their advertising rates in the Northern cities, while having national exposure.

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

What does this give them? The two most SEC like schools increasing football content further, and the markets of North Carolina and Virginia.

The Big 10 gains valuation ground, but the SEC gets stronger within its region and adds 20 million potential viewers. Texas and Oklahoma get some more exposure more than double their market population, and still feature Oklahoma and Texas football, Kansas basketball with more support from Louisville and Syracuse, and Texas plays in a division that permits them to keep their business model totally intact while gaining exposure in two recruit rich states.

What does ESPN get? 4 truly regional football champions most years. No longer does the Southeast dominate with 2 or even 3 slots in the CFP. The PAC has a champ, the Big 10 has a champ, the Big 12 has a champ, and the SEC produces only 1 champ as well.

So why does the SEC go for this? It maintains its rivalries, it gets them, it makes them more money, and it maintains their brand and identity.

So ESPN finally has a CFP that draws all 4 regions of the country into the first round.

Each conference has 3 division champs and 1 at large school which helps keep fan bases motivated deeper into the season and allows for a conference semi-final

Special allowances are made for the PAC which keeps a 2 division format and only has a CCG.

Wake Forest gets a partial deal with ESPN showing their T3 on ESPN+ but they are guaranteed annual games with each of the North Carolina schools and Georgia Tech and Virginia and alternating games with Clemson and South Carolina.

Given the various athletic programs I follow/root for ... I could get on board with these three leagues JRsec hypothetically outlines (though I would be concerned for Memphis).

I like the thought of Cincy and Louisville being reunited and Duke and UNC in the Big Ten. I've always liked the idea of NCState in the SEC.

JRsec's vision:

Big 12:
Baylor, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

What does this give them? The New England market over to Ohio and renews old rivalries. It picks up large individual markets in Atlanta and Miami both in recruiting hotbeds and Louisville and Syracuse give Kansas some basketball rivals.

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

What does this give them? 3 academic bluebloods, the Virginia and North Carolina markets, and a top 3 football brand which shores up their advertising rates in the Northern cities, while having national exposure.

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

(03-27-2020 10:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The only logical question to ask, which is pertinent, is this, "How could ESPN organize the Big 12 so that it could better profit by it?

How could ESPN augment the value of the SEC without making it too powerful?

How could ESPN win the cooperation of the Big 10 in keeping the 49% of their rights they now hold?

Which conference would it be easier to build an competitive conference around the Big 12, or the ACC?

Why? Because I don't believe the PAC does anything.

How? By making it more profitable for everyone.

How do you organize those conferences? In 3 divisions of 6.

Big 12:
Baylor, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

What does this give them? The New England market over to Ohio and renews old rivalries. It picks up large individual markets in Atlanta and Miami both in recruiting hotbeds and Louisville and Syracuse give Kansas some basketball rivals.

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

What does this give them? 3 academic bluebloods, the Virginia and North Carolina markets, and a top 3 football brand which shores up their advertising rates in the Northern cities, while having national exposure.

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

What does this give them? The two most SEC like schools increasing football content further, and the markets of North Carolina and Virginia.

The Big 10 gains valuation ground, but the SEC gets stronger within its region and adds 20 million potential viewers. Texas and Oklahoma get some more exposure more than double their market population, and still feature Oklahoma and Texas football, Kansas basketball with more support from Louisville and Syracuse, and Texas plays in a division that permits them to keep their business model totally intact while gaining exposure in two recruit rich states.

What does ESPN get? 4 truly regional football champions most years. No longer does the Southeast dominate with 2 or even 3 slots in the CFP. The PAC has a champ, the Big 10 has a champ, the Big 12 has a champ, and the SEC produces only 1 champ as well.

So why does the SEC go for this? It maintains its rivalries, it gets them, it makes them more money, and it maintains their brand and identity.

So ESPN finally has a CFP that draws all 4 regions of the country into the first round.

Each conference has 3 division champs and 1 at large school which helps keep fan bases motivated deeper into the season and allows for a conference semi-final

Special allowances are made for the PAC which keeps a 2 division format and only has a CCG.

Wake Forest gets a partial deal with ESPN showing their T3 on ESPN+ but they are guaranteed annual games with each of the North Carolina schools and Georgia Tech and Virginia and alternating games with Clemson and South Carolina.

This is essentially "Eliminating the ACC as a Power Conference". This would be feasible if 1) The Big Ten is able to get Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame, 2) The SEC counters by grabbing Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia, 3) The Big 12 takes in the leftovers minus Wake Forest along with Cincinnati and BYU. This also requires the Big 12 and Pac 12 to remain intact through the next set of contracts.

I can certainly see 1 and 2 happening. I'm not so sure about 3. The remaining 7 ACC schools if left behind don't have much incentive to join a western conference but won't really have anywhere else to go. The other question is would the Big 12 really want them? They didn't want to expand before although these schools are in general a higher level than the current AAC schools. If they do go to a "Big 18", I don't see it being one giant happy family and I can certainly see it breaking up not long after it forms, especially if Texas is Texas.

The alternate scenario is a "new ACC" which is

Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Miami,
Connecticut, Temple, Cincinnati, Central Florida, I think if West Virginia wants in they would be able to get in but would they leave the Big 12 assuming it remains intact? If not South Florida.

(03-27-2020 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 06:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-27-2020 05:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Michigan State was admitted to the Big10 before they were in the AAU. I would venture that most of the Big10 universities were playing each other and formed the conference before the AAU was created. There is no doubt that academics is a criteria for conference membership, but the obsession with “AAU” seems exaggerated

In the case of the Big 10 athletic and academics do matter because the Big 10 conference is also an Academic Consortium. It works because all members are Peer institutions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_...c_Alliance

In the case of the Airport Conference they could be very close to doing the same thing.

Consider best case scenario:
West: all 8 AAU schools - Washington, Oregon, Utah, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona.

The East is more problematic. But best case
East: Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, Missouri.... Then you have 3 more which are more problematic- Nebraska, Oklahoma, plus 1 more.

Missouri is free to leave if they wish but it won't happen and for another reason. In 2012 had the SEC been about to make what they are about to make in 2024 (low end 67 million per school) Missouri wouldn't have paid their way in. By 2024 the Big 10 will be in the mid 60 millions in revenue as well and the same story will be true. For that matter Kansas doesn't get in on their own steam with either conference but would be acceptable if traveling with one of the schools that would pay their way in, and there's only 3: Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma, in that order.

So don't look for the SEC or Big 10 to expand beyond 16, unless of course one of them lands both Oklahoma and Texas in which case it would reduce the NET gain but they could take two tag-alongs. Otherwise the math doesn't work.

Now if there was an opportunity to divide a larger conference with better market and academic additions then as long as the money was break even we might find a justification for such a move But that's not likely either.

Right now the only way I could see the Big 10 growing with more than 2 schools is if they picked up the core of the PAC. And the only way the SEC might do it is if they could pick up the core of the ACC.

But Texas isn't moving North. Nothing about it suits their business model or satisfies their fans. Plus they are under contract with ESPN until 2031 for the LHN.

So again that raises the question as to whether the Big 10 would add a school that can't pay their way in at 65 million (Kansas) and an academic outlier (Oklahoma)? I think if that is their option they'll wait in hopes of landing two of North Carolina, Notre Dame and Virginia.

Okay Academics aside why do you think a conference covering almost 110M people, which is similar population to the SEC and Big, not have similiar revenue?

From 2018 taxes, The Big Revenue per school was $54M. The Revenue for the SEC was $43.7M in revenue. The combined Revenue for the PAC-12 and Big 12 would be $43.8M in Revenue for the 16 schools brought in. I could argue dumping the PAC-12 conference overhead would raise it even more. The numbers for the Big are not what Maryland and Rutgers got nor Mississippi in the SEC.

You could make the argument it might go down because you dropped schools but hard to see too many schools being left out having a huge financial impact... You could also make the case the inter-division match-ups like USC-Texas or Washington-Oklahoma would be significant draws and obvious inter-divisional match-ups for the first 2-3 years of the conference.

(03-27-2020 08:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  To be realistic, barring a dire situation, nobody but the California schools would leave the Pac. The rest need access to California alumni and recruits. Colorado is making less in TV revenue in the Pac 12 than if they had stayed, but they are still happy because they are getting contributions from California alumni.

Now could USC, UCLA and possibly Cal and Stanford decide to leave? That's possible.

Could there be an airport meeting? Only if it was lead by the California schools.

Yep I agree and on your side the key is Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma. OK State is the real fly in the ointment.