Was thinking about this and had this alignment come to mind. I don't think any school today would willingly leave the SEC unless: 1) they were offered the same or more money, 2) had a better chance of making the CFP, and/or 3) joined a conference with their academic, geographic, and institutional peers.

South Carolina regularly comes up as a school to head out and rejoin the ACC. I know Gamecocks fans hate this idea but it is an idea that comes up enough to consider. Missouri, likewise, openly verbalized their desire to be in the B1G. While there might be some hurt feelings there, I would think they'd still be interested.

What if...

SEC > South Carolina > ACC
ACC > Florida St, Georgia Tech, Louisville > SEC
SEC > Missouri > B1G
B1G > Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers > ACC
XII > Baylor > SEC
XII > West Virginia > ACC
XII > Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St > B1G
XII > Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma St, Kansas > PAC

SEC
West: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Baylor, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

B1G
West: Iowa, Iowa St, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Oklahoma, Texas
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Ohio St, Purdue, Wisconsin

PAC
West: California, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah

ACC
Atlantic: Clemson, Maryland, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
Coastal: Boston College, Duke, Miami, North Carolina, Penn St, Rutgers, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Why would we ever take Rape U over TCU in that scenario?

We would get to pick before the PAC and don’t care if they also wisely decide to have nothing to with them either

(07-10-2020 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 04:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Thanks for your theory here Jr. It sounds the most sensible thing to me. People here have forgotten one item in the mix. It's called "loyalty" to the conference. I know that sounds a bit old, but it makes a difference. Without that, none of it makes any difference. Schools will not be traded like stocks or baseball cards unless they are asked or treated as outcasts. I doubt anything woven into the SEC fabric would make them even consider asking a school to leave the SEC.

I think the only way Missouri would consider leaving would be if the Big 10 was trying to land most of the old Big 8 including Kansas.

Right now I doubt any school in a major P conference is going anywhere and they aren't planning a move. If the SEC sought to expand, or the Big 10 did, the monetary difference is great enough to be an incentive along with the stability.

IMO A&M was the wrong partner for Missouri. It would have been much healthier if we had add 4 schools and Kansas had been in the mix with Oklahoma.

Put Missouri with Kansas and Oklahoma and your fans have something familiar to look forward too that will sustain them in an SEC schedule that is mostly with schools with which they have little to no history.

I don't see much economic benefit it adding to the East.

But face it Medic if the SEC is to be a long term happy home for Missouri we need to have a couple of schools from the Old Big 8 with them to help cement all of them into the greater grouping. Right now Mizzou has nobody they have played more than a dozen time in the East except Vanderbilt and that counts the 8 seasons they've played the Eastern schedule. A&M only has history with them due to the Big 12 years. If the SEC wants to ease Missouri folks into a longtime love of all things SEC having Kansas and Oklahoma is really a necessity.

I think Kansas is an interest of ESPN, but I'm not sure about the Sooners. I know Texas is.

But right now nobody is going to do anything until the COVID thing is in the rearview mirror.

The Aggies are in the same situation in the SEC as Missouri. Their history is with the SWC and Big XII. I think OU and KU or even Texas would benefit both.

(08-01-2020 09:41 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 04:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Thanks for your theory here Jr. It sounds the most sensible thing to me. People here have forgotten one item in the mix. It's called "loyalty" to the conference. I know that sounds a bit old, but it makes a difference. Without that, none of it makes any difference. Schools will not be traded like stocks or baseball cards unless they are asked or treated as outcasts. I doubt anything woven into the SEC fabric would make them even consider asking a school to leave the SEC.

I think the only way Missouri would consider leaving would be if the Big 10 was trying to land most of the old Big 8 including Kansas.

Right now I doubt any school in a major P conference is going anywhere and they aren't planning a move. If the SEC sought to expand, or the Big 10 did, the monetary difference is great enough to be an incentive along with the stability.

IMO A&M was the wrong partner for Missouri. It would have been much healthier if we had add 4 schools and Kansas had been in the mix with Oklahoma.

Put Missouri with Kansas and Oklahoma and your fans have something familiar to look forward too that will sustain them in an SEC schedule that is mostly with schools with which they have little to no history.

I don't see much economic benefit it adding to the East.

But face it Medic if the SEC is to be a long term happy home for Missouri we need to have a couple of schools from the Old Big 8 with them to help cement all of them into the greater grouping. Right now Mizzou has nobody they have played more than a dozen time in the East except Vanderbilt and that counts the 8 seasons they've played the Eastern schedule. A&M only has history with them due to the Big 12 years. If the SEC wants to ease Missouri folks into a longtime love of all things SEC having Kansas and Oklahoma is really a necessity.

I think Kansas is an interest of ESPN, but I'm not sure about the Sooners. I know Texas is.

But right now nobody is going to do anything until the COVID thing is in the rearview mirror.

The Aggies are in the same situation in the SEC as Missouri. Their history is with the SWC and Big XII. I think OU and KU or even Texas would benefit both.

Not quite. They had a long standing rivalry with L.S.U. that predated the formation of the SEC and they have a shared cultural history with Alabama and Kentucky with the whole Bear Bryant story.

That said, I don't disagree with your assertion. I would love at this juncture for the SEC to bring in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. And depending on how this could be worked I would be good with 16, 18, or 20. But if it's 20 we need to be done.

The preference would be for those 3. My favorite scenario for it is for Vandy to become a partial. But if it takes 18 then let's figure out who that should be and get it done.

If realignment has taught us anything it is that you can't just add a school, particularly one with little to no history with your conference and expect good results. Realignment should be about grating in schools which have compatible history and using the divisional set up as a means of helping them keep cultural identity and a sense of geographic cohesion.

So if the SEC added Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma do you think that would help both Missouri and A&M to settle in with a reasonable sense of cohesion? And if we had to take a 4th which one would you most like to see included and which one do you think would be the one the others would insist upon?

(08-01-2020 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2020 09:41 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 04:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Thanks for your theory here Jr. It sounds the most sensible thing to me. People here have forgotten one item in the mix. It's called "loyalty" to the conference. I know that sounds a bit old, but it makes a difference. Without that, none of it makes any difference. Schools will not be traded like stocks or baseball cards unless they are asked or treated as outcasts. I doubt anything woven into the SEC fabric would make them even consider asking a school to leave the SEC.

I think the only way Missouri would consider leaving would be if the Big 10 was trying to land most of the old Big 8 including Kansas.

Right now I doubt any school in a major P conference is going anywhere and they aren't planning a move. If the SEC sought to expand, or the Big 10 did, the monetary difference is great enough to be an incentive along with the stability.

IMO A&M was the wrong partner for Missouri. It would have been much healthier if we had add 4 schools and Kansas had been in the mix with Oklahoma.

Put Missouri with Kansas and Oklahoma and your fans have something familiar to look forward too that will sustain them in an SEC schedule that is mostly with schools with which they have little to no history.

I don't see much economic benefit it adding to the East.

But face it Medic if the SEC is to be a long term happy home for Missouri we need to have a couple of schools from the Old Big 8 with them to help cement all of them into the greater grouping. Right now Mizzou has nobody they have played more than a dozen time in the East except Vanderbilt and that counts the 8 seasons they've played the Eastern schedule. A&M only has history with them due to the Big 12 years. If the SEC wants to ease Missouri folks into a longtime love of all things SEC having Kansas and Oklahoma is really a necessity.

I think Kansas is an interest of ESPN, but I'm not sure about the Sooners. I know Texas is.

But right now nobody is going to do anything until the COVID thing is in the rearview mirror.

The Aggies are in the same situation in the SEC as Missouri. Their history is with the SWC and Big XII. I think OU and KU or even Texas would benefit both.

Not quite. They had a long standing rivalry with L.S.U. that predated the formation of the SEC and they have a shared cultural history with Alabama and Kentucky with the whole Bear Bryant story.

That said, I don't disagree with your assertion. I would love at this juncture for the SEC to bring in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. And depending on how this could be worked I would be good with 16, 18, or 20. But if it's 20 we need to be done.

The preference would be for those 3. My favorite scenario for it is for Vandy to become a partial. But if it takes 18 then let's figure out who that should be and get it done.

If realignment has taught us anything it is that you can't just add a school, particularly one with little to no history with your conference and expect good results. Realignment should be about grating in schools which have compatible history and using the divisional set up as a means of helping them keep cultural identity and a sense of geographic cohesion.

So if the SEC added Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma do you think that would help both Missouri and A&M to settle in with a reasonable sense of cohesion? And if we had to take a 4th which one would you most like to see included and which one do you think would be the one the others would insist upon?

If I may add my "two cents worth"....as to MU, I do think a KU/OU add would help them because of the LONG Big 8, not to mention Big12 history. Of course, to add KU would probably be the icing on the cake as both schools "hate" each other with a passion-reviving an "ancient" rivalry is always good.
As to A&M, I'm not sure they don't feel "OK" the way it is. Since they left for the SEC, they have only played WVA from the B12, and only once. They do have a game with Colorado in the fall of 2021 and did play OSU in a bowl game. Otherwise, they have no former Big12 games scheduled through 2028. They might wish one of the old SWC members ....and maybe Texas but otherwise they don't seem to have much to do with the former Big12 teams, or even those from the old SWC after 2015. As to a fourth team, I don't really know. UT MIGHT like Tech, or OU might like OSU...doubt that KU would push for KSU. So, I guess it would be "ESPN choice"!

Yeah there is zero problem of cohesion on our end with the conference as is

We have a long-standing history with LSU. A&M vs LSU was our Texas vs OU game during the 80s and 90s

We have even longer standing with the Arkansas rivalry. We’ve played Arky more than Texas Tech despite a 20 year hiatus

And culturally we fit the SEC like a glove. Big Southern Football Land grant/Flagship school. We have so much more in common with schools like Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Bama and LSU than we’d ever have with midwestern B1G Lite schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Okie State and Colorado

We never wanted to be with the Big 8 schools to begin with and the SWC taught us that letting state politics force you into bad partnerships is even worse. So if not a single current B12 team is ever is allowed to join the SEC and we expand purely from the ACC then A&M wouldn’t shed a single tear. In fact that’s our PREFERENCE

To JR's question about a #4 after Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas... I actually wouldn't mind West Virginia at that point. I know they have some dings in areas of value for the SEC, but it would be a clear front for the SEC in terms of a border with the BIG. Add a pair of schools down the road from the state of Virginia and the state of North Carolina, and you have your 20-team SEC that is present in every state that has any Southern culture to it (yes, I submit parts of Maryland still have it). The #4 from the Big 12 after Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas is going to be a drop off no matter how you cut it, so it might as well be a border expansion move with a flagship. Plus, they would be a figurative (and maybe literal) riot to play, especially for Kentucky and Tennessee.

(08-02-2020 11:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Yeah there is zero problem of cohesion on our end with the conference as is

We have a long-standing history with LSU. A&M vs LSU was our Texas vs OU game during the 80s and 90s

We have even longer standing with the Arkansas rivalry. We’ve played Arky more than Texas Tech despite a 20 year hiatus

And culturally we fit the SEC like a glove. Big Southern Football Land grant/Flagship school. We have so much more in common with schools like Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Bama and LSU than we’d ever have with midwestern B1G Lite schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Okie State and Colorado

We never wanted to be with the Big 8 schools to begin with and the SWC taught us that letting state politics force you into bad partnerships is even worse. So if not a single current B12 team is ever is allowed to join the SEC and we expand purely from the ACC then A&M wouldn’t shed a single tear. In fact that’s our PREFERENCE

If Notre Dame never joins the ACC in full then we might see some expansion out of the East. If they do join in full at some point then any future additions will be coming from the West.

In 1991 Florida expressed concerns over access to Florida State should conferences indeed grow to 16. They expressed this concern again in 2011 along with South Carolina.

This year has only exacerbated those concerns.

I would think that ESPN is going to have to do something to alleviate those fears and if the SEC is doubling up Clemson and Florida State in revenue this issue will only grow.

Meantime there is no doubt whatsoever that ESPN is interested in landing Texas and Kansas fully and possibly Oklahoma.

It will be a fascinating political struggle, executive struggle, and personality struggle resolving these concerns for everyone and doing it equitably.

Quite frankly it doesn't get resolved at 16. It really only gets any form of resolution at 20, and possibly 24 the latter two numbers essentially representing two conferences under one umbrella.

Let's say that ESPN can land Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma only form the West. They add Clemson and Florida State from the East. Do you round that out with N.C. State, or does Georgia's political structure insist upon Georgia Tech? Or do you jump to 24 adding Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and West Virginia, or Louisville and Miami?

Does ESPN even want to deal with that many programs getting paid top dollar? I think you can justify the first five no questions asked. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Clemson and Florida State essentially explode the content value of the SEC in a positive way. But what one school truly adds the value as #6 in a move to 20? Do you pick up N.C. State for the market, pick up Georgia Tech for the rivalry and to lock other conferences out of Atlanta, or do you pick up Miami for a sweep of Florida? Those are some points to ponder.

In that kind of climate I fully expect North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame to head to the Big 10. Georgia Tech probably becomes the best overall defensive move. If Missouri and Kansas decide to go Big 10 that opens up slots for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. If not we are probably done with Tech. Either way we are solid.

(08-02-2020 04:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2020 11:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Yeah there is zero problem of cohesion on our end with the conference as is

We have a long-standing history with LSU. A&M vs LSU was our Texas vs OU game during the 80s and 90s

We have even longer standing with the Arkansas rivalry. We’ve played Arky more than Texas Tech despite a 20 year hiatus

And culturally we fit the SEC like a glove. Big Southern Football Land grant/Flagship school. We have so much more in common with schools like Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Bama and LSU than we’d ever have with midwestern B1G Lite schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Okie State and Colorado

We never wanted to be with the Big 8 schools to begin with and the SWC taught us that letting state politics force you into bad partnerships is even worse. So if not a single current B12 team is ever is allowed to join the SEC and we expand purely from the ACC then A&M wouldn’t shed a single tear. In fact that’s our PREFERENCE

If Notre Dame never joins the ACC in full then we might see some expansion out of the East. If they do join in full at some point then any future additions will be coming from the West.

In 1991 Florida expressed concerns over access to Florida State should conferences indeed grow to 16. They expressed this concern again in 2011 along with South Carolina.

This year has only exacerbated those concerns.

I would think that ESPN is going to have to do something to alleviate those fears and if the SEC is doubling up Clemson and Florida State in revenue this issue will only grow.

Meantime there is no doubt whatsoever that ESPN is interested in landing Texas and Kansas fully and possibly Oklahoma.

It will be a fascinating political struggle, executive struggle, and personality struggle resolving these concerns for everyone and doing it equitably.

Quite frankly it doesn't get resolved at 16. It really only gets any form of resolution at 20, and possibly 24 the latter two numbers essentially representing two conferences under one umbrella.

Let's say that ESPN can land Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma only form the West. They add Clemson and Florida State from the East. Do you round that out with N.C. State, or does Georgia's political structure insist upon Georgia Tech? Or do you jump to 24 adding Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and West Virginia, or Louisville and Miami?

Does ESPN even want to deal with that many programs getting paid top dollar? I think you can justify the first five no questions asked. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Clemson and Florida State essentially explode the content value of the SEC in a positive way. But what one school truly adds the value as #6 in a move to 20? Do you pick up N.C. State for the market, pick up Georgia Tech for the rivalry and to lock other conferences out of Atlanta, or do you pick up Miami for a sweep of Florida? Those are some points to ponder.

In that kind of climate I fully expect North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame to head to the Big 10. Georgia Tech probably becomes the best overall defensive move. If Missouri and Kansas decide to go Big 10 that opens up slots for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. If not we are probably done with Tech. Either way we are solid.

Don't forget that 21 is a viable option with three divisions of seven teams each, so you don't have to take 4 teams to move from 20 to 24.

I'm thinking that if UNC/Duke/Virginia/ND all go to the Big 10, then GT might want to go that way too. That's 5 for the Big 10, so I'll throw in Pitt to get to 20 for them. In fact, let's give them Kansas too so they have 21.

So that leaves 7 spots for us too.
Texas, OK, Clemson, FSU and 3 others.

I'll take WVU, VT, and NC St. (You could make the case for TCU or Miami or even USF for sure [I like USF over UCF because of the research and they actually have a history, almost getting into the championship game already). I'm normally low on WVU but I like the symmetry I'll show in a moment. I know the "market" method of expansion is gone, but you get a lot more eyeballs, and VT and NC St. in the SEC could become much bigger brands. WVU Is a top of the Big 12 brand as it is, and in an expanded SEC fits in well.

That would mean:
NC St. vs. UNC
Georgia vs. GT
VT vs. Virginia
Missouri vs. Kansas
WVU vs. Pitt

replace the SEC-ACC matchups.

PAC-12 takes Texas Tech/TCU/OK St./Kansas St./Iowa St plus one of Boise/SDSU/New Mexico? type schools.

(08-03-2020 01:20 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(08-02-2020 04:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2020 11:11 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Yeah there is zero problem of cohesion on our end with the conference as is

We have a long-standing history with LSU. A&M vs LSU was our Texas vs OU game during the 80s and 90s

We have even longer standing with the Arkansas rivalry. We’ve played Arky more than Texas Tech despite a 20 year hiatus

And culturally we fit the SEC like a glove. Big Southern Football Land grant/Flagship school. We have so much more in common with schools like Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Bama and LSU than we’d ever have with midwestern B1G Lite schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Okie State and Colorado

We never wanted to be with the Big 8 schools to begin with and the SWC taught us that letting state politics force you into bad partnerships is even worse. So if not a single current B12 team is ever is allowed to join the SEC and we expand purely from the ACC then A&M wouldn’t shed a single tear. In fact that’s our PREFERENCE

If Notre Dame never joins the ACC in full then we might see some expansion out of the East. If they do join in full at some point then any future additions will be coming from the West.

In 1991 Florida expressed concerns over access to Florida State should conferences indeed grow to 16. They expressed this concern again in 2011 along with South Carolina.

This year has only exacerbated those concerns.

I would think that ESPN is going to have to do something to alleviate those fears and if the SEC is doubling up Clemson and Florida State in revenue this issue will only grow.

Meantime there is no doubt whatsoever that ESPN is interested in landing Texas and Kansas fully and possibly Oklahoma.

It will be a fascinating political struggle, executive struggle, and personality struggle resolving these concerns for everyone and doing it equitably.

Quite frankly it doesn't get resolved at 16. It really only gets any form of resolution at 20, and possibly 24 the latter two numbers essentially representing two conferences under one umbrella.

Let's say that ESPN can land Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma only form the West. They add Clemson and Florida State from the East. Do you round that out with N.C. State, or does Georgia's political structure insist upon Georgia Tech? Or do you jump to 24 adding Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and West Virginia, or Louisville and Miami?

Does ESPN even want to deal with that many programs getting paid top dollar? I think you can justify the first five no questions asked. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Clemson and Florida State essentially explode the content value of the SEC in a positive way. But what one school truly adds the value as #6 in a move to 20? Do you pick up N.C. State for the market, pick up Georgia Tech for the rivalry and to lock other conferences out of Atlanta, or do you pick up Miami for a sweep of Florida? Those are some points to ponder.

In that kind of climate I fully expect North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Notre Dame to head to the Big 10. Georgia Tech probably becomes the best overall defensive move. If Missouri and Kansas decide to go Big 10 that opens up slots for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. If not we are probably done with Tech. Either way we are solid.

Don't forget that 21 is a viable option with three divisions of seven teams each, so you don't have to take 4 teams to move from 20 to 24.

I'm thinking that if UNC/Duke/Virginia/ND all go to the Big 10, then GT might want to go that way too. That's 5 for the Big 10, so I'll throw in Pitt to get to 20 for them. In fact, let's give them Kansas too so they have 21.

So that leaves 7 spots for us too.
Texas, OK, Clemson, FSU and 3 others.

I'll take WVU, VT, and NC St. (You could make the case for TCU or Miami or even USF for sure [I like USF over UCF because of the research and they actually have a history, almost getting into the championship game already). I'm normally low on WVU but I like the symmetry I'll show in a moment. I know the "market" method of expansion is gone, but you get a lot more eyeballs, and VT and NC St. in the SEC could become much bigger brands. WVU Is a top of the Big 12 brand as it is, and in an expanded SEC fits in well.

That would mean:
NC St. vs. UNC
Georgia vs. GT
VT vs. Virginia
Missouri vs. Kansas
WVU vs. Pitt

replace the SEC-ACC matchups.

PAC-12 takes Texas Tech/TCU/OK St./Kansas St./Iowa St plus one of Boise/SDSU/New Mexico? type schools.

B1G
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
North: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
East: Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia

SEC
West: Arkansas, LSU, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Tennessee
East: Clemson, Florida St, Kentucky, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

PAC
West: California, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Utah

AAC
West: Baylor, Houston, Navy/Wichita St, SMU, TCU, Tulsa
South: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane
East: Boston College, East Carolina, Miami, Temple, Syracuse, Wake Forest

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:59 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  When the Big 12 formed, that was the time to bring Arkansas into the fold—supposedly Nebraska wasn’t fond of bringing in the hogs. So the hogs found a new stable home before the SWC blew up.

Now the only SEC school not committing enough resources to compete in conference is Vanderbilt. So say they leave. Conference sits at 13. If I’m Sankey, I offer both OU and UT (assuming there’s enough votes for Texas) and then sit on that third spot in case any one of those programs requires an instate tag along. If neither target decides to leave the Big 12, round off with West Virginia and wait for the next window to pop up.

Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Why would the SEC even care if the Big Ten did break the ACC wide open??? For that matter, why would ESPN care??

(08-03-2020 06:21 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:44 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 01:13 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Right. There are only 2 schools that could leave the SEC IMO and neither is likely to completely do so. I do think some day Vanderbilt might explore a partial membership if they don't commit further to football. Missouri might consider a Big 10 invitation if the right schools were moving with them and I do mean "might", but that's it. Nobody else is going anywhere.

If I'm the SEC I offer Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma if Vanderbilt seeks a partial membership. If either Texas or Oklahoma wants to bring a tag-along the other will insist on one too. In that case just move to 18 and 3 divisions of 6 and take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Kansas or West Virginia.

I have no problems with WVU if Kansas heads North. But if Kansas heads North then possibly Missouri goes with them. At that point taking Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech takes us to 16 and we're done.

If Kansas/MO head north, then (especially with the status of the PAC-12 and the Big 10's potential to get Colorado) I wonder if OK might consider the Big 10 a lot more; assuming the Big 10 would consider them. That would mean that at least three of the former Big 8 schools (Nebraska, MO, Kansas and possibly CO) are already in the Big 10.

Based on the viewer data thread info (perhaps that one needs to bumped to important threads?), could we take OK St. on its own if OK went north? They would be right in the middle of the SEC in terms of viewership, and still give us all that OK gives us minus the branding, which I recognize is huge. But taking the "little brother" (no offense meant at all to A&M) has worked in the past.

I realize this is all hypothetical but I'm not sure about some of the assumptions. For what it's worth, here are my assumptions!! I can think of no reason why Missouri would ever willingly leave the SEC even to the B1G, without some inducement from the SEC to do so [and I can't imagine what that would be (money?) but just don't think that would happen.]. I'm also skeptical that KU could go to the B1G on its own, so if no MU then probably no KU. But, I'm also skeptical that the B1G has any great designs on KU/MU. I think OU/KU to the B1G is more likely than MU/KU though I'm not sure that's more than a "fallback" position for the B1G, at best. OU/KU to the SEC, assuming UT doesn't want to join, is to me more likely than those two to the B1G. If OU is leaving, I'm just not sure what Texas might do in the end as I think they don't really want to go to the SEC (or any other conference for that matter), but I don't think they would be happy to be "king" in a second tier conference (assuming OU & KU had left). Could Texas go independent? It would be tough but I suppose not out of the question. I don't think Colorado really has much interest in the B1G, even with the extra money that they would acquire. Almost 13% of CU undergraduates come from California! [almost four times as many as the next out-of-state group (Illinois), and there are only a few others from B1G states] and CU has large groups of alums in both Los Angeles & San Francisco. Finally as I stated in an earlier post, I don't see the SEC using slots on TT or OSU, rather than either using them with others (ie., KU with OU if UT doesn't want in), just "saving" slots for the future (Clemson, FSU???) later, or just not using them at all. I think the SEC would "like" OU and/or UT but I don't see them "needing" OU and/or UT to the extent they would take a tag-a-long second school from OK or TX. But, of course, I'm not making SEC decisions so some of my assumptions could be incorrect.

If just the SEC was making the decision we would only move to 16 and we would do it with Texas and Oklahoma and call it quits.

The problem is the SEC isn't making the decisions alone. They are making them in conjunction with ESPN. The question then becomes what does ESPN want? If they really want full access to Texas and Texas doesn't want the ACC does ESPN want us to take Tech to get Texas and do they fully reward us for the effort? Nothing gets done without the network paying for it. Outside the network the SEC can't monetize any move effectively enough to make it on their own. The same is true for Oklahoma but since ESPN doesn't hold OU's T3 one must question whether ESPN has long term plans for the Sooners. ESPN does pay nearly what FOX pays for Oklahoma in order to hold onto Kansas.

So my guess should ESPN truly want to use the SEC in the most economical way then I'd say that the pairing would be Texas and Kansas.. ESPN gets full control of both for all three tiers. FOX gets Oklahoma and the Big 10 and FOX look for a partner to go with them.

If the SEC lands Texas and Oklahoma or Texas and Kansas there will be no Clemson and Florida State in the future unless the Big 10 breaks the ACC wide open.

Why would the SEC even care if the Big Ten did break the ACC wide open??? For that matter, why would ESPN care??

The SEC cares who permeates the advertising regions of the SEC. The Atlanta market is large market which UGA delivers but barely. UGA delivers the rest of the state at over an 85% clip. Auburn has the third largest fanbase in Atlanta but that's under 20%. Advertising companies don't pay the premium rate when they can get a reasonably deep penetration in a large market from a team not of your conference. If Georgia Tech goes to the Big 10 that gives FOX an entrance into Atlanta and costs ESPN the rate they can charge for advertising in Atlanta, which in turn costs the SEC money.

The whole purpose for taking Florida State is that gives the SEC 80% coverage in Florida which is enough for a much better rate in a large state. The same is true of taking Texas to go with A&M in Texas, especially if Oklahoma comes along because they give you a paltry state of 4 million but they give you massive control over DFW (another 7 million) giving whoever advertises with the SEC no wiggle room on giving prime rates for those 11 million viewers.

The SEC wants to have an advertising lock in all of its states. Ironically it was ESPN that tried to prevent that by forcing us to add new markets to renegotiate contracts. They wanted to control all the parties in South Carolina and Florida and pay the ACC and SEC lower dividends on advertising because they didn't control those two states sufficiently. The SEC gets prime rates for Georgia, but not necessarily for Atlanta which as we both know is where the money in advertising is in Atlanta.

If FOX cracks the ACC by a raid from the Big 10 and takes Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia it will all be done to get Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a huge draw in Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit, and New York City, and in Cincinnati. That keeps the Big 10 and FOX from maxing out add rates in those areas because NBC can advertise the product for them more cheaply while showing Notre Dame. This is the big reason the Big 10 would cut off their left nut to land the Irish and why ESPN will try anything to land them completely.

So if Notre Dame heads north with Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia, they get a huge payday due to advertising rate control of those cities. Consequently the SEC will over Georgia Tech to keep their butts out of Atlanta. We outright own Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Mississippi. By taking Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech we flat out add South Carolina and Florida to our monopoly in the Southeast and through Tech sew up the only part of Georgia that isn't outright ours. Toss in Texas, and Oklahoma and you add two more locks on control for ad rates. Toss in Kansas, Virginia Tech and N.C. State and you add 2 largish markets in North Carolina and Virginia and a top brand giving you a high % of a small state with Kansas.

That's how the executives look at these moves.

ESPN would balk at all of this unless it meant that they got a larger % of the Big 10 for letting Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame and Virginia head North. But if that happens ESPN runs the risk of alienating the SEC if they don't help us locik up the Southeastern market. If they allowed the Big 10 in to Georgia's Atlanta market and tried to prevent the SEC from finally sewing up Florida with FSU they would risk the SEC never signing another contract with them and they know it.

If the ACC breaks up the SEC will absolutely go for the lock on its footprint, and we had a 20 team expansion plan in 1991 in case just that very thing happened. Only now we would press just as hard for Texas and Oklahoma because those additions will pay for themselves no matter who holds the damned media contract.