TAMU74 said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

I assume the PAC goes after Tech and maybe TCU or OSU.

I think Kansas and another may get picked up by the ACC. I never know what to predict from the BIG10.

I think Baylor and some others are about to face a harsh reality.

---

Why isn't baylor suing tu and ou?
They couldn't wait to sue us when we announced we were leaving.
Also, I have always heard that the OK legislature would not let ou go anywhere w/o little brother.
Why so silent on all fronts?

---

Regarding OK legislature I am pretty sure that's just a myth.

UltimateSuperGenius said:

---

The Okies don't have the academics for the Big 10. tu is not coming to the SEC. I think tu ends up in the Big 10 with Kansas.

---

You related to Wile E. Coyote?

UltimateSuperGenius said:

---

The Okies don't have the academics for the Big 10. tu is not coming to the SEC. I think tu ends up in the Big 10 with Kansas.

---

Uh, dude, this is done. The sips are coming to the SEC. It's not a play to leverage their way into the Big 10. Time to start living in reality.

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

TAMU74 said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

I assume the PAC goes after Tech and maybe TCU or OSU.

I think Kansas and another may get picked up by the ACC. I never know what to predict from the BIG10.

I think Baylor and some others are about to face a harsh reality.

---

Why isn't baylor suing tu and ou?
They couldn't wait to sue us when we announced we were leaving.
Also, I have always heard that the OK legislature would not let ou go anywhere w/o little brother.
Why so silent on all fronts?

---

Regarding OK legislature I am pretty sure that's just a myth.

---

David Boren was OU President back then and honored agreements, even if not in writing, with OSU. He insisted they were part of the PAC deal. The original one. Then in 2011, he went back to the PAC to take OU and Okie Lite as a pair. PAC said no.

It's a simple equation.
TV$/X where x us # of teams. If X+1 doesn't increase TV$ By at least TV$/X, it's a no go. No current member would vote in adding another school that will actually decrease their TV$ Even if it increases the conferences overall TV$. None of the big 12 leftovers increase pac12 or B1G by TV$/X so they are left out.

1876er said:

---

It's a simple equation.
TV$/X where x us # of teams. If X+1 doesn't increase TV$ By at least TV$/X, it's a no go. No current member would vote in adding another school that will actually decrease their TV$ Even if it increases the conferences overall TV$. None of the big 12 leftovers increase pac12 or B1G by TV$/X so they are left out.

---

A&M only had so many fans. That is why the SEC is adding UT. And OU.

1876er said:

---

It's a simple equation.
TV$/X where x us # of teams. If X+1 doesn't increase TV$ By at least TV$/X, it's a no go. No current member would vote in adding another school that will actually decrease their TV$ Even if it increases the conferences overall TV$. None of the big 12 leftovers increase pac12 or B1G by TV$/X so they are left out.

---

Can't the new members just take less money than the existing members?

MSCAg said:

---

Apparently various sources saying the Big10 not interested in expansion.

---

Bc last time they ended up with Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska /laugh cry

aggiehawg said:

---

twk said:

---

There is not a move available to either league at this time that would pay for itself by getting their TV partners to increase their payout enough to maintain each current member`s pro rata share, much less increase it. Might be a different story in the next decade when the ACC grant of rights expires, but any other move would be panicky.

---

But what I don't really understand is why the B1G turned down the package deal of tu and OU this past February if the money was there? Yeah, OU is not AAU but the numbers work for the B1G if they work for the SEC, correct?

That's why I seriously doubt the #s being presented by ESPN. Fox Sports sure weren't seeing those numbers and were happy to watch the sooners and sips go to ESPN. Doesn't make financial sense.

Someone is lying.

---

Because ESPN does not own all the broadcast rights to the Big Ten. ESPN is able to justify throwing money at the SEC because it is saving money (and clearing unwanted inventory, which it has to do to pick up the CBS first tier SEC rights in 2025) by dropping its Big XII package in 2025, and pulling the plug on the LHN. They get to keep the only Big XII teams that mattered (shutting out Fox in the process), solve their inventory glut, and get rid of an underperforming Big XII contract.

Quote:

---

Because ESPN does not own all the broadcast rights to the Big Ten. ESPN is able to justify throwing money at the SEC because it is saving money (and clearing unwanted inventory, which it has to do to pick up the CBS first tier SEC rights in 2025) by dropping its Big XII package in 2025, and pulling the plug on the LHN. They get to keep the only Big XII teams that mattered (shutting out Fox in the process), solve their inventory glut, and get rid of an underperforming Big XII contract.

---

Oh I understand why ESPN wants and is driving this but what I don't understand why the B1G didn't see enough value in adding them when given the chance. It could end up being just a massive mistake that would have never happened had Delany still been in charge.

Or, the numbers add up for ESPN and only ESPN and did not add up for the B1G and Fox. Wouldn't it be ironic if the leadership of the B1G never thought the SEC would take the sips because of the gentlemen's agreement?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Because ESPN does not own all the broadcast rights to the Big Ten. ESPN is able to justify throwing money at the SEC because it is saving money (and clearing unwanted inventory, which it has to do to pick up the CBS first tier SEC rights in 2025) by dropping its Big XII package in 2025, and pulling the plug on the LHN. They get to keep the only Big XII teams that mattered (shutting out Fox in the process), solve their inventory glut, and get rid of an underperforming Big XII contract.

---

Oh I understand why ESPN wants and is driving this but what I don't understand why the B1G didn't see enough value in adding them when given the chance. It could end up being just a massive mistake that would have never happened had Delany still been in charge.

Or, the numbers add up for ESPN and only ESPN and did not add up for the B1G and Fox. Wouldn't it be ironic if the leadership of the B1G never thought the SEC would take the sips because of the gentlemen's agreement?

---

B1g was their fallback option, SEC was always their best fit. They could have gone to ACC or Pac12, but probably would have waited to see how other dominoes started falling, instead.

I think the NCAA proper first used the term pod referring to basketball tournament scheduling circa 2012(?). We heard it as part of the discussion of the PAC-16 merger of course but not by the NCAA itself. Think the "laws" only use divisions regarding the CCG which actually is a sticking point for resolving a four division selection into a single CCG.

I actually think the comparison with NFL divisions is apt. Or MLB for that matter. Note all major professional leagues resolve playoffs through conferences. The NCAA tournaments are unique in that regard.

"Yup. People in Maryland probably care more about the Naval Academy than the Terps."

That is such a stupid statement. Navy grads get deployed. Terps stay in the Maryland area.

OU will never be let into the Big 10. Baylor and Purple Baylor are NOT good fits for the Pac 12 because they are relgious schools and they went after Utah and not BYU because of the religion deal.