(06-05-2020 07:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'd take Utah over Kansas State. Salt Lake City is way more important than Manhattan, Kansas. Texas probably won't care that much that KSU is included (I don't they'd care that much if Oklahoma State is included).

Fair enough.

Quote: Then I'd keep North and South to allow everyone access to California but this time Colorado and Utah move to the north.

North: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma State
South: UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU

Wow, generous giving UCLA and USC access to Texas and Cal and Stanford access to Salt Lake City and Stillwater.

Thing is, these are three time zones, and I don't think Texas wants its division to include Pacific Time schools, so I still think in that case it would be (the names are just fillers):

West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona
American: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona State

Downhill, one repercussion is BYU is more likely to stays independent of the tweener Big12, if Utah is in the genuine Power American West Conference. So that's another school raided from either the MWC or AAC by the New Big12.

This is definitely NOT a "this is just things taking their natural course" scenario, this is an "airport meeting" scenario, after Oklahoma and (in this scenario) Kansas declare they are gone, there is an airport meeting somewhere between the California four and Texas/TCU/TexasTech/OkState, and they announce the formation of a new conference (which is already the minimum eight for an FBS conference) and the acceptance of applications for six spots.

All six of those spots going to former Pac-12 schools is plausible enough.

(06-05-2020 09:06 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I would think ou would rather stick with UT and replace ksu in the american division imo

"ou stick with UT"?
Oregon stick with UT?
Remember the whole scenario is based on Oklahoma being in the SEC with Kansas.

(06-05-2020 03:48 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 07:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'd take Utah over Kansas State. Salt Lake City is way more important than Manhattan, Kansas. Texas probably won't care that much that KSU is included (I don't they'd care that much if Oklahoma State is included).

Fair enough.

Quote: Then I'd keep North and South to allow everyone access to California but this time Colorado and Utah move to the north.

North: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma State
South: UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU

Wow, generous giving UCLA and USC access to Texas and Cal and Stanford access to Salt Lake City and Stillwater.

Thing is, these are three time zones, and I don't think Texas wants its division to include Pacific Time schools, so I still think in that case it would be (the names are just fillers):

West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona
American: Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona State

Downhill, one repercussion is BYU is more likely to stays independent of the tweener Big12, if Utah is in the genuine Power American West Conference. So that's another school raided from either the MWC or AAC by the New Big12.

This is definitely NOT a "this is just things taking their natural course" scenario, this is an "airport meeting" scenario, after Oklahoma and (in this scenario) Kansas declare they are gone, there is an airport meeting somewhere between the California four and Texas/TCU/TexasTech/OkState, and they announce the formation of a new conference (which is already the minimum eight for an FBS conference) and the acceptance of applications for six spots.

All six of those spots going to former Pac-12 schools is plausible enough.

(06-05-2020 09:06 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I would think ou would rather stick with UT and replace ksu in the american division imo

"ou stick with UT"?
Oregon stick with UT?
Remember the whole scenario is based on Oklahoma being in the SEC with Kansas.

If you have to do East/West, I'd probably just put Utah in the West and keep Arizona and Arizona State together rather than split them.

(06-05-2020 05:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Assuming the SEC takes Kansas, for the book larnin' and the Basketball, and that it's Utah that loses in the paper/rock/scissors match with Colorado, the mega American Western Conference is:
Western Division: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona
American Division: Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Colorado, Arizona State

Then the Big12 is:
West Virginia, Iowa State, Baylor, Utah, Washington State, Oregon State

I don't see a strong argument for bringing in either K-State or Ok St if KU and OU are not part of the deal. Those two are the "second schools" from states that have fewer people than Arizona, Oregon, or Colorado. For that matter, Kansas even has fewer people than Utah. The Horns don't have any incentive to take care of those two; they'd be more likely to want to bring Baylor along than either.

(06-05-2020 09:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 05:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Assuming the SEC takes Kansas, for the book larnin' and the Basketball, and that it's Utah that loses in the paper/rock/scissors match with Colorado, the mega American Western Conference is:
Western Division: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona
American Division: Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Colorado, Arizona State

Then the Big12 is:
West Virginia, Iowa State, Baylor, Utah, Washington State, Oregon State

I don't see a strong argument for bringing in either K-State or Ok St if KU and OU are not part of the deal. Those two are the "second schools" from states that have fewer people than Arizona, Oregon, or Colorado. For that matter, Kansas even has fewer people than Utah. The Horns don't have any incentive to take care of those two; they'd be more likely to want to bring Baylor along than either.

Horns? It's the California Four who would rather not Baylor if they can avoid it.

But like I say, I'm not saying they are somehow "a natural pick", so it does come down to personalities at the California 4 and at UT. A more indulgent attitude in the California 4, "Texas can have whatever three come along schools they want in the Central Time Zone division", sure, maybe TCU, Texas Tech and Baylor.

IMV, the two clear left-behind in the Big12 in this kind of airport meeting scenario are WVU and Iowa State.

Can we get Tulane included then? Who doesn't like trips to Nawlins??

(06-06-2020 07:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 09:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 05:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Assuming the SEC takes Kansas, for the book larnin' and the Basketball, and that it's Utah that loses in the paper/rock/scissors match with Colorado, the mega American Western Conference is:
Western Division: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona
American Division: Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Colorado, Arizona State

Then the Big12 is:
West Virginia, Iowa State, Baylor, Utah, Washington State, Oregon State

I don't see a strong argument for bringing in either K-State or Ok St if KU and OU are not part of the deal. Those two are the "second schools" from states that have fewer people than Arizona, Oregon, or Colorado. For that matter, Kansas even has fewer people than Utah. The Horns don't have any incentive to take care of those two; they'd be more likely to want to bring Baylor along than either.

Horns? It's the California Four who would rather not Baylor if they can avoid it.

But like I say, I'm not saying they are somehow "a natural pick", so it does come down to personalities at the California 4 and at UT. A more indulgent attitude in the California 4, "Texas can have whatever three come along schools they want in the Central Time Zone division", sure, maybe TCU, Texas Tech and Baylor.

IMV, the two clear left-behind in the Big12 in this kind of airport meeting scenario are WVU and Iowa State.

Yes, it's what UT would want.

Remember, your premise is that UT has turned down the SEC.

If they do that, it means they want to keep the Big 12 as is. And that means, if OU and KU bolt for the SEC, UT would be extremely pissed at OU and KU. They'd feel like they have no choice but to also leave.

Their attitude would be, "To hell with you, we're not going to make it easier for you to leave by giving your little brothers a soft landing spot. If you're going to leave, then you, OU and KU, have to deal with whatever political fallout comes from your little brothers being relegated to a tweener conference. We are not going to take care of them for you."

In this hypothetical deal, all the money to be made from central time zone schools comes from Austin. Money = Power. If they want another school to come along with them, they're in. If not, they're not. It's not a matter of the California schools having an "indulgent" attitude -- it's simply that money talks, and thus UT can include the schools they want to include. Any political benefit to UT would come from "helping" other schools in Texas, just as when the Big 12 was first formed. So if they're going to "take care" of anyone, it will be Texas Tech instead of Oklahoma State, TCU instead of Kansas State, Baylor instead of Iowa State, etc., etc.

IMO the bottom line is that if OU or KU leaves the Big 12, then either the conference they go to takes in their little brother, or no one does.

If Texas and Oklahoma felt like they needed to make a move to try and keep their media rights as the same level as the SEC and Big 10 but wanted to keep their instate rivals close, then:

Pacific: Wash, Ore, Stan, Cal, UCLA, USC, Ariz, Ariz St
Central: Utah, Colo, Okla, Ok St, Texas, TTU, Baylor, TCU

There’s some room for variations, leave out the TX private schools and do 14, swap someone out for Kansas, etc.

(06-06-2020 04:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Texas and Oklahoma felt like they needed to make a move to try and keep their media rights as the same level as the SEC and Big 10 but wanted to keep their instate rivals close, then:

Pacific: Wash, Ore, Stan, Cal, UCLA, USC, Ariz, Ariz St
Central: Utah, Colo, Okla, Ok St, Texas, TTU, Baylor, TCU

There’s some room for variations, leave out the TX private schools and do 14, swap someone out for Kansas, etc.

Anyway we can swap baylor for Iowa st?

(06-06-2020 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  In this hypothetical deal, all the money to be made from central time zone schools comes from Austin. Money = Power. If they want another school to come along with them, they're in. If not, they're not.

Last time they were putting this kind of deal together, it was going to be UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Houston, until Baylor alumni in the right position of power used leverage they had to get Baylor in. So I am a lot more confident in Texas wanting Texas Tech and TCU than Baylor.

And I'm a bit skeptical of the "since Oklahoma said 'screw you', we're going to say 'screw you' too to get back at them".

But humans are funny critters sometimes, maybe they do.

(06-09-2020 10:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  In this hypothetical deal, all the money to be made from central time zone schools comes from Austin. Money = Power. If they want another school to come along with them, they're in. If not, they're not.

Last time they were putting this kind of deal together, it was going to be UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Houston, until Baylor alumni in the right position of power used leverage they had to get Baylor in. So I am a lot more confident in Texas wanting Texas Tech and TCU than Baylor.

And I'm a bit skeptical of the "since Oklahoma said 'screw you', we're going to say 'screw you' too to get back at them".

But humans are funny critters sometimes, maybe they do.

The Big 8 wanted to add just UT and TAMU, until the politicians “educated” UT and TAMU on the “benefits” of bringing along TTU and Baylor, said benefits including a new basketball arena for TAMU.

(06-09-2020 01:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 10:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  In this hypothetical deal, all the money to be made from central time zone schools comes from Austin. Money = Power. If they want another school to come along with them, they're in. If not, they're not.

Last time they were putting this kind of deal together, it was going to be UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Houston, until Baylor alumni in the right position of power used leverage they had to get Baylor in. So I am a lot more confident in Texas wanting Texas Tech and TCU than Baylor.

And I'm a bit skeptical of the "since Oklahoma said 'screw you', we're going to say 'screw you' too to get back at them".

But humans are funny critters sometimes, maybe they do.

The Big 8 wanted to add just UT and TAMU, until the politicians “educated” UT and TAMU on the “benefits” of bringing along TTU and Baylor, said benefits including a new basketball arena for TAMU.

I think there was also some motivation to go to 12 for a CCG upon seeing the success of the SEC.

(06-06-2020 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yes, it's what UT would want.

Remember, your premise is that UT has turned down the SEC.

If they do that, it means they want to keep the Big 12 as is. And that means, if OU and KU bolt for the SEC, UT would be extremely pissed at OU and KU. They'd feel like they have no choice but to also leave.

Their attitude would be, "To hell with you, we're not going to make it easier for you to leave by giving your little brothers a soft landing spot. If you're going to leave, then you, OU and KU, have to deal with whatever political fallout comes from your little brothers being relegated to a tweener conference. We are not going to take care of them for you."

That and they'd have the fig leaf of telling their boosters that Oklahoma chose to leave first, thus giving their justification for going West.

Also, if you go by the gross revenues from last year, both TCU and Baylor are higher than 5 of the 12 PAC schools. Only Tech would be a drag and TT is higher than both OSU and WSU.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-896892.html

I doubt the circumstances would radically change by 2023-24, when a decision would need to be made.

(06-09-2020 09:50 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(06-06-2020 02:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Yes, it's what UT would want.

Remember, your premise is that UT has turned down the SEC.

If they do that, it means they want to keep the Big 12 as is. And that means, if OU and KU bolt for the SEC, UT would be extremely pissed at OU and KU. They'd feel like they have no choice but to also leave.

Their attitude would be, "To hell with you, we're not going to make it easier for you to leave by giving your little brothers a soft landing spot. If you're going to leave, then you, OU and KU, have to deal with whatever political fallout comes from your little brothers being relegated to a tweener conference. We are not going to take care of them for you."

That and they'd have the fig leaf of telling their boosters that Oklahoma chose to leave first, thus giving their justification for going West.

Also, if you go by the gross revenues from last year, both TCU and Baylor are higher than 5 of the 12 PAC schools. Only Tech would be a drag and TT is higher than both OSU and WSU.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-896892.html

I doubt the circumstances would radically change by 2023-24, when a decision would need to be made.

CDC wouldn't have to lie to the boosters at Texas.. He's transparent with them, which is the reason how he's been able to get donations to pay for a new Basketball arena, olympic pool, upgrades to the soccer stadium and now the South EZ project..... without the city of Austin paying a dime.

If Texas declines an invitation to the SEC and ou chooses to go there, then UT will be joining a new conference. There will be no blaming ou for leaving. If the money makes more sense for ou to join the SEC, then more power to them.

Texas will do what's best for Texas, no need to tell half truths to the boosters.

(05-22-2020 09:34 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 07:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s entertain a wild idea: Could the PAC 12 earn more money per school if they booted out Washington St and Oregon St and went to ten teams with a full round robin schedule?

Think about it—two less mouths to feed, mouths that have been cellar dwellers in both attendance and in the conference standings

Contraction would give everyone a trip to both the Bay Area and LA annually.

Neither are AAU so you could leverage it as an academic decision.

Washington and Oregon need not vote yes on expulsion because if everyone else votes yes their votes are meaningless.

Playing full round robin would allow them to pit #1 vs #2 rather than send a weak division winner to a title game.

AAU is a social and political club for research universities seeking to control federal funds - it's not an academic metric. Using the Big East as an example of what conferences do and the decision they make is problematic because as a conference they were an extreme outlier of what is normal.

There has not been the action to toss out a member of a traditional P-5 conference since the PCAA and UCLA in 58 or 59. That was for rampant cash cheating. No one is going vote to toss someone out over money. It violates their ethics.

In the late 90's Temple was hosting football games with attendance less than 10K and their agreement with the Big East was football only. I'm not sure they even count under the general meaning of "tossed out" if you were never a full member.

I would say Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU have a better claim to have been shitcanned back in 1996 or VT and West Virginia in 1954 regarding actions taken that left someone high and dry. VT and West Virginia was a dispute over post season bowls. Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU was a function of Texas politics.

Sort of

They didn’t lose out because of Texas politics. The Big 8 simply had no interest in them.

Now they had no interest in TTU or Baylor either but those two were saved a similar fate to the forgotten four thanks entirely to opportunistic politics.

Otherwise those two would be in the MWC or CUSA today

(06-11-2020 07:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 09:34 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 07:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s entertain a wild idea: Could the PAC 12 earn more money per school if they booted out Washington St and Oregon St and went to ten teams with a full round robin schedule?

Think about it—two less mouths to feed, mouths that have been cellar dwellers in both attendance and in the conference standings

Contraction would give everyone a trip to both the Bay Area and LA annually.

Neither are AAU so you could leverage it as an academic decision.

Washington and Oregon need not vote yes on expulsion because if everyone else votes yes their votes are meaningless.

Playing full round robin would allow them to pit #1 vs #2 rather than send a weak division winner to a title game.

AAU is a social and political club for research universities seeking to control federal funds - it's not an academic metric. Using the Big East as an example of what conferences do and the decision they make is problematic because as a conference they were an extreme outlier of what is normal.

There has not been the action to toss out a member of a traditional P-5 conference since the PCAA and UCLA in 58 or 59. That was for rampant cash cheating. No one is going vote to toss someone out over money. It violates their ethics.

In the late 90's Temple was hosting football games with attendance less than 10K and their agreement with the Big East was football only. I'm not sure they even count under the general meaning of "tossed out" if you were never a full member.

I would say Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU have a better claim to have been shitcanned back in 1996 or VT and West Virginia in 1954 regarding actions taken that left someone high and dry. VT and West Virginia was a dispute over post season bowls. Houston, Rice, SMU, and TCU was a function of Texas politics.

Sort of

They didn’t lose out because of Texas politics. The Big 8 simply had no interest in them.

Now they had no interest in TTU or Baylor either but those two were saved a similar fate to the forgotten four thanks entirely to opportunistic politics.

Otherwise those two would be in the MWC or CUSA today

Yep, but as to Statefan's assumption about kicking people out of the P5, that would not happen. What would happen is if say after two GOR's expired a merger was held where a few schools simply didn't come along. They aren't kicked out but they are left behind. If image and stipends are too expensive for a few small privates to keep up they might take themselves out. But those are the scenarios where we could see a membership change in the P5. But a conference isn't going to ask someone to leave. They may well be relieved if a few did, but nobody is going to be asked to leave.

That said if the current P5 privates did indeed form their own conference and were included in the CFP and Bowl selection I do believe that would result if few if any state schools being left behind from the current P5, and would leave a small amount of room for the best G5's based upon the geographical needs of what would likely be a P3 of state schools.

Exactly

I could see a B8/SWC type merger between the PAC and B12 for a 16 team conference

Oregon
Washington
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
ASU

Colorado
Utah
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU

(06-11-2020 09:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly

I could see a B8/SWC type merger between the PAC and B12 for a 16 team conference

Oregon
Washington
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
ASU

Colorado
Utah
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU

That grouping looks somewhat realistic.
However, just from some of the numbers I have seen, it appears that Baylor would be more valuable than Texas Tech and possibly Oklahoma State.
Kansas basketball and Oklahoma/Texas football would certainly breathe some life into the west coast.

(06-12-2020 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 09:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly

I could see a B8/SWC type merger between the PAC and B12 for a 16 team conference

Oregon
Washington
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
ASU

Colorado
Utah
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU

That grouping looks somewhat realistic.
However, just from some of the numbers I have seen, it appears that Baylor would be more valuable than Texas Tech and possibly Oklahoma State.
Kansas basketball and Oklahoma/Texas football would certainly breathe some life into the west coast.

Are those numbers from just last season when Baylor had an unusually good season? Let's see a Matt Rhule less Baylor team and see if Baylor is still as good.

(06-12-2020 05:53 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-12-2020 04:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-11-2020 09:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Exactly

I could see a B8/SWC type merger between the PAC and B12 for a 16 team conference

Oregon
Washington
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Arizona
ASU

Colorado
Utah
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU

That grouping looks somewhat realistic.
However, just from some of the numbers I have seen, it appears that Baylor would be more valuable than Texas Tech and possibly Oklahoma State.
Kansas basketball and Oklahoma/Texas football would certainly breathe some life into the west coast.

Are those numbers from just last season when Baylor had an unusually good season? Let's see a Matt Rhule less Baylor team and see if Baylor is still as good.

Baylor is about to get slammed once they finally submit it's investigation findings to the state next month. If realignment does come, their elite lawyers won't have a leg to stand on.

With that proposed 16 team conference, is it still best to use the traditional 2 divisions? If there are no permanent cross rival games, teams could play once every 4 years if you do not do home and home in consecutive seasons.

Feel that if they really want to mix it up they should be the first of the P5 (P4) to do the 4 pod, 4 schools system.

Texas will NEVER be in a conference controlled by California ...Texas controls Texas


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk