Conferences could negotiate TV packages collectively or under the NCAA if so inclined. They wouldn't have to be in a super conference to do that.

Pass the popcorn please...

quote:

---

Captain Augustus McCrae
MaysGrad09
Texas A & M
SEC 2012
TAMU bball fan

These are all the same poster quoting and replying and staring himself. Same as the sky-is-falling academic threads.

---

Yep it sure does seem these same posters come running to take a steaming dump on anything academic related.

quote:

---

Conferences could negotiate TV packages collectively or under the NCAA if so inclined. They wouldn't have to be in a super conference to do that.

---

Party like it's 1984?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2004-08-19-hiestand-college-football_x.htm

While the NFL model produces more money it's not necessarily the best for the fans. How many NFL games can the average fan watch on any given Sunday? 3 or 4?

I believe there will be a consolidation at the top of the FBS. If cord cutting really becomes a thing, the SEC will move to improve its tier 1 inventory by:

a) Going to a 9 game conference schedule. That would mean A&M for instance would play one of UF/UGA/UT every year and one of those games would be a home game every other year.

b) Drop FCS games and possibly ask each team to schedule 2 Power 4 opponents every year. There will only be 4 power conferences because we already know the BDF will not survive long term.

If all the power conferences do this it would actually reduce the overall game inventory for those conferences but improve the overall quality of games.

A side effect that many here will not like is you will lose one home game a year. One thing I have learned right here on texags is, the secondary market drives the primary market. The addition of higher quality home games will drive the price of season tickets such that schools will not see a drop in revenue by losing that 1 home game. No one cares about A&M vs Prairie View while A&M vs UT is a hot ticket on the secondary market this year.

This will increase the tier 1 game inventory which is where the money will be with the broadcast networks if cord cutting marginalizes cable network revenue. The SEC will want to negotiate a national broadcast contract for tier 1 with 2 time slots per week vs just 1 like we have now. The group of 5 conferences will be left in the cold but there is only so much money to go around and the golden rule will assert itself.

quote:

---

Sure, it is. Probably why California is such a red state. Very conservative.

LOL.

---

^^^^ This guy makes generalizations about all democrats based on Fox News bits.

quote:

---

Sure, it is. Probably why California is such a red state. Very conservative.

LOL.

---

I've spent some time in San Deigo and it's filled with a bunch of red necks and pick up trucks.

quote:

---

I've spent some time in San Deigo and it's filled with a bunch of red necks and pick up trucks.

---

San Diego would secede from California if they could. Rare outpost of sanity in that state.

Military bases in San Diego remain. Norton is gone and March has been scaled back to a reserve base. The Orange County locus of Republicans largely accreted in the same area as military/aerospace contracting. But the party split in the Assembly is more representative of the state. Or: the plural of anecdote isn't data...

Other than SD, California is a cess pool full of socialists and bigots. Berkley students in particular would be in full attack mode. I have lived in LA, SD and Monterey while on AD, and other than SD, it was obvious that Californians hate the military, traditional values and real Americans.

I think A&M's academic profile is better than that of Oregon State, Washington State and most certainly Arizona State. Only reason we keep those first two is they're founding members of the Pacific Coast Conference, otherwise, they wouldn't get sniffed these days if we were looking at adding them to the conference. From what I recall, last time the Pac-10 was considering expansion, the main issue with A&M they had was that they would require A&M to invest more money into the academic side of things. You guys have the athletics aspect well taken care of. Namely, the presidents of Stanford, SUC, and chancellors of Cal-Berkeley and UCLA would require A&M to raise research endowments within their graduate programs, as one of the key cogs of the Pac-12 is that they place major emphasis on research from member institutions, which is why Utah and Colorado got major consideration, and eventually invited into the conference, and the reason a school like BYU would never be a good fit for the Pac-12 (They are not a research institution, that and Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC would not really welcome their religious affiliation into the conference.)

Well, if they would do that to us, how in the world would OU be acceptable? Much less OSU?

quote:

---

I think A&M's academic profile is better than that of Oregon State, Washington State and most certainly Arizona State. Only reason we keep those first two is they're founding members of the Pacific Coast Conference, otherwise, they wouldn't get sniffed these days if we were looking at adding them to the conference. From what I recall, last time the Pac-10 was considering expansion, the main issue with A&M they had was that they would require A&M to invest more money into the academic side of things. You guys have the athletics aspect well taken care of. Namely, the presidents of Stanford, SUC, and chancellors of Cal-Berkeley and UCLA would require A&M to raise research endowments within their graduate programs, as one of the key cogs of the Pac-12 is that they place major emphasis on research from member institutions, which is why Utah and Colorado got major consideration, and eventually invited into the conference, and the reason a school like BYU would never be a good fit for the Pac-12 (They are not a research institution, that and Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC would not really welcome their religious affiliation into the conference.)

---

So you are saying that the PAC-12 won't expand because of academic reasons no matter how far your athletic departments fall behind in revenue?

The PAC has a lot of snobby schools.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think A&M's academic profile is better than that of Oregon State, Washington State and most certainly Arizona State. Only reason we keep those first two is they're founding members of the Pacific Coast Conference, otherwise, they wouldn't get sniffed these days if we were looking at adding them to the conference. From what I recall, last time the Pac-10 was considering expansion, the main issue with A&M they had was that they would require A&M to invest more money into the academic side of things. You guys have the athletics aspect well taken care of. Namely, the presidents of Stanford, SUC, and chancellors of Cal-Berkeley and UCLA would require A&M to raise research endowments within their graduate programs, as one of the key cogs of the Pac-12 is that they place major emphasis on research from member institutions, which is why Utah and Colorado got major consideration, and eventually invited into the conference, and the reason a school like BYU would never be a good fit for the Pac-12 (They are not a research institution, that and Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC would not really welcome their religious affiliation into the conference.)

---

So you are saying that the PAC-12 won't expand because of academic reasons no matter how far your athletic departments fall behind in revenue?

---

I'm not a school president, so I can't call it. All I'm saying is, they are the ones who have the power to expand the conference, and they are the ones that require academics first from any institution they invite. They being the 4 California schools. That's all. If I had it my way, I'd long ago have brought in Texas, A&M, OU and OSU on board with the Pac.

quote:

---

The PAC has a lot of snobby schools.

---

I agree. It's mostly Cal and Stanford, and both of those putting the pressure on the LA schools to "co-sign" on their stance.

Texas isn't part of the Deep South.

It's not the west either.

Our best cultural fit was probably the Big12 (or the old SWC) . With that not being an option, the SEC and PAC are probably equally good. The SEC is king in football which is what we care about most. The PAC is better in the other sports and in academics. Travel and time zones are a little better in the SEC--although when I move back to San Deigo some day I may feel differently.

Summary: BDF has no options. BDF fans daydream other conferences are interested. Some dummies would rather start games @ 10:30 pm Central and have a crap TV deal.

The fact that the pac12 let in Colorado ends any argument about academics being a consideration.

quote:

---

The fact that the pac12 let in Colorado ends any argument about academics being a consideration.

---

I know Colorado had felt they were more West Coast than middle America fly-over country. But I think Colorado being extended an invite was perhaps more of a preemptive strike than anything else.

You have to remember who had Scott's ear in 2010--Kevin Weiberg, former Big XII commish. Sixteen (a round number) was always the goal for the PAC 10 (at that time.) Keeping Baylor out was an issue that Weiberg anticipated would arise. Probably part of the reason the negotiations were so secret that A&M, among others, were kept out of the loop.

The original deal was five teams: sips, sooners, pokes, tards and Aggies. When we balked, that opened a slot for Baylor in theory. Colorado jumped in to fill that void and not to be left behind in an imploding conference. And a PAC 16 with Colorado, OU, tu, Aggies would have been a higher profile conference, if just because of the Central Time Zone and having three states' flagships as additions.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Prediction: A&M is not in the "SEC" in 20 years. Conferences will merge.

---

I hope not. The SEC isn't a good fit culturally or academically. I still think we should have gone to the PAC. Mix in some Texas rivalries with the PAC South schools and that would be a fun conference.

---

So let's get this right, we would move to the PAC and get paid less (from their joke of a PAC television payout and network), have more expenses (due to extensive travel), even later kick off times, west coast teams whom are extremely liberal and really detest everything A&M stands for, and we would be better off than every measureable thing written above and the natural fit culturally with SEC? Yeah, you reak of bovine dung sip there!

The logic of us not being a good cultural fit for the SEC is baffling. I seldom rooted for Big12 teams to succeed out of conference and have found myself rooting for every SEC team when playing out of conference foes. To me, it seems like the prevailing attitude in the Big12 is what killed the SWC. Look no further than the Baker Mayfield revote, which in my mind, got it right the second time (should have been the first)

That being said, nothing would make me happier than to see the top teams of the Big 12 merge with the PAC12. We would be able to keep our identity as the Texas school that plays in the best conference.

As a Vols fan I think TA&M joining the SEC was one of the best decisions the conference has made in my lifetime.

I love watching the Southwest Classic in Dallas. It's a traditional rivalry renewed. It's awesome. Now we have 2 neutral site games in the SEC...TA&M vs ARK...and UGA vs UF. Life is good.

I just wished TA&M traveled to Neyland next year but they don't.

quote:

---

The logic of us not being a good cultural fit for the SEC is baffling.

---

Sip trolls. Ignore them.

I still watch more Big 12 football than SEC football. I know it's endangered by a lot of off-field considerations, but I hope it lasts, because it's a hell of a fun conference.

quote:

---

I still watch more Big 12 football than SEC football. I know it's endangered by a lot of off-field considerations, but I hope it lasts, because it's a hell of a fun conference.

---

To say we fit better in the Pac is borderline ******ed. And if you think that state cares about anything A&M stands for, you remove all doubt about your ******edness. Take one look at some of their laws and you'll understand. We may not be part of the deep south as it is defined, but I dang sure feel more comfortable in those states than I ever would in Commifornia. A&M is where they need to be, to think otherwise.. and you should just shuffle on down the road, cause you have no credibility here.

quote:

---

I think A&M's academic profile is better than that of Oregon State, Washington State and most certainly Arizona State. Only reason we keep those first two is they're founding members of the Pacific Coast Conference, otherwise, they wouldn't get sniffed these days if we were looking at adding them to the conference. From what I recall, last time the Pac-10 was considering expansion, the main issue with A&M they had was that they would require A&M to invest more money into the academic side of things. You guys have the athletics aspect well taken care of. Namely, the presidents of Stanford, SUC, and chancellors of Cal-Berkeley and UCLA would require A&M to raise research endowments within their graduate programs, as one of the key cogs of the Pac-12 is that they place major emphasis on research from member institutions, which is why Utah and Colorado got major consideration, and eventually invited into the conference, and the reason a school like BYU would never be a good fit for the Pac-12 (They are not a research institution, that and Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC would not really welcome their religious affiliation into the conference.)

---

BRU1NS, you should check your bias at the door. Currently TAMU research endowment would be second in the PAC12, behind Stanford, and is the highest of any public university. However, as many posters have thoroughly explained, A&M is a much better cultural fit to the SEC than the PAC.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Prediction: A&M is not in the "SEC" in 20 years. Conferences will merge.

---

I hope not. The SEC isn't a good fit culturally or academically. I still think we should have gone to the PAC. Mix in some Texas rivalries with the PAC South schools and that would be a fun conference.

---

Since when has TAMU been liberal a**holes? Why not go to the B1G..? We are a true fit with the SEC culturally and as far as academics are concerned, we most definitely increased the smart meter with Vandy.

Take off those skinny jeans & high waters with penny loafers...if you wouldn't spend so much time out west in liberal land you would see that those gorgeous states of Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and the likes fit perfectly with our beloved Aggieland.

I say you're a sip troll x's 10!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Prediction: A&M is not in the "SEC" in 20 years. Conferences will merge.

---

I hope not. The SEC isn't a good fit culturally or academically. I still think we should have gone to the PAC. Mix in some Texas rivalries with the PAC South schools and that would be a fun conference.

---

A&M isn't a good fit culturally and academically in the SEC? Are you insane? TAMU is an old school, deeply southern Land Grant school. We are cut from the same cloth as MSU, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas. We are conservative and have deep ties to the military and our founders had roots in The Confederacy.

How exactly does this equate to a common culture with ANY school in the PAC? Those are all schools that despise the military and foster a neo-Marxist extreme left wing culture. What the FK do we have in common with those bed wetting communists?

Academically, UGA and UF are very much our peers. The are also Land Grant schools. In fact, all the schools in the SEC are Land Grant except Ole Miss, Alabama, Vanderbilt, and USC.

The only Land Grant schools in the PAC are Arizona, OSU, and WSU. And other than that, I can't think of a damn thing we have in common with those schools.

I think you are smoking crack.

---

Hold on there Kemo Sabe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That dude really doesn't know his facts but you schooled his butt!

Land Sea and Space Grant University! Only 17 Universities can claim this

quote:

---

As for the OP, I think a Pac-BDF merger makes sense. The Pac needs the central time zone and the BDF needs some better partners. It won't be a 22 team league though, it will be 16 teams and it will be a shotgun wedding. That wedding will be held in a private, by invitation only, and it will be over before the schools left behind know what hit them.

---

This is the vibe I'm getting

All of these pundits looking for clicks. The entire industry, from ESPN down, have become one giant mass of non-stop talking, and yet nobody has anything real to say.