If Texas and OU can go west and take Tech and OSU along with them there are ways to structure a 16 team conference. OU could group those four into an East Pod, group CU, Utah, and the Arizonas into a mountain pod, the California schools into a California pod and the Washingtons and Oregons into a Pacific NW pod.

In this scenario Texas would play its three pod opponents and two rotating opponents (presumably home and away) from the other three pods for nine conference games. This means six games in CST, one MST, and two PST. In addition to whatever OOC games they schedule and if they make a Pac-16 championship or playoff and whenever those games would be held.

The two PST games a year would be annoying, especially if they are against bad teams, but it's not insurmountable. After all the quality of play in the Big 12 at the moments means plenty of wonky start times anyways so I wouldn't call it a deal breaker.

Now if it's just Texas and OU that go west...that's a different (and hilarious) story.

quote:

---

This is why OU and UT are heading west at some point. Maybe with Tech and OSU in tow. The Pac-12 HAS to expand before it is hemmed in geographically and because their conference network is floundering. The West Coast is largely apathetic about college football and they need rabid middle American and Texans to tune in. They could even work out a deal to turn the LHN into an ESPN backed revamped Pac-12 network that could be more successful. It makes so much sense and there is actual tangible conference need for an expansion to back it up.

---

The best move the PAC-12 could make would be to take t.u., OU, Kansas, and Iowa State.

I recognize Iowa State is not a powerhouse football program but it does bring some things to the table:
1. It is an AAU member so that will keep the academics happy.
2. It would allow the PAC to add four states instead of three or only two. Given the geographic limitations that the PAC faces, it needs to add as many as possible (within reason--obviously WV would be stretching it too much).
3. Unlike the other candidates Iowa State doesn't have to find a home for another school (Iowa is in the BIG and Northern Iowa is FCS).

You get Kansas' b-ball program, OU's football program, and Texas' media eyeballs, plus you don't upset the senior Senator from Iowa who just happens to head the Senate Finance Committee (does any conference really want its "non-profit status" investigated?)

quote:

---

If Texas and OU can go west and take Tech and OSU along with them there are ways to structure a 16 team conference. OU could group those four into an East Pod, group CU, Utah, and the Arizonas into a mountain pod, the California schools into a California pod and the Washingtons and Oregons into a Pacific NW pod.

In this scenario Texas would play its three pod opponents and two rotating opponents (presumably home and away) from the other three pods for nine conference games. This means six games in CST, one MST, and two PST. In addition to whatever OOC games they schedule and if they make a Pac-16 championship or playoff and whenever those games would be held.

The two PST games a year would be annoying, especially if they are against bad teams, but it's not insurmountable. After all the quality of play in the Big 12 at the moments means plenty of wonky start times anyways so I wouldn't call it a deal breaker.

Now if it's just Texas and OU that go west...that's a different (and hilarious) story.

---

Good point. And that's why the TexHoma 4 make the most sense, (from their standpoint. Maybe not the PACs.)

How would tu's dwindling viewership numbers affect their ability to jump ship? Sure, they have a "brand," but when it comes down to brass tacks they have had crappy TV numbers the last 5 years. Would the PAC and other conferences look at them and tell them to come back when they can pull above a 0.0?

You people are the most delusional bunch in the country.

Not that UT wants anything to do with the SEC, but, had Slivy had a choice between UT and TAMU (when he was negotiating under the table with bow tie), do you think there is any doubt which team he would have preferred?
Which team would have added more class, prestige, athletic history and academics to the SEC? Which team would have been an actual upgrade to the SEC? Which team would be an automatic sell out at every stadium in the SEC? Which team would bring more money and exposure to the SEC? Which team is the historically superior Texas team? Which team has now been documented as the only team that Saban would bolt to?
And the aggies will say "But, but - what about the LHN?" And UT will say "We'll spread the profits amongst the SEC". Deal done.

The only advantage TAMU had over UT is its extensive experience in cheating. I'll concede that one and admit that is a plus for the SEC.

.

quote:

---

Which team has now been documented as the only team that Saban would bolt to?

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa.......!

quote:

---

quote:

---

i listened and Deloss never said OU had an offer to the SEC. He mentioned only a pac offer.

Again OU never had an SEC offer. Boren was blowing smoke.

---

In the link of Dodds' speech, he was talking about the events of 2011, not 2010.

There was never any talk of tu going to the ACC in 2010. It was the PAC or stay in the Big XII for them.

Think about it. Missouri was all about the B1G. That's what they wanted in 2010 and said so publicly.

Slive knew Delany wasn't done with just adding Nebraska, he was going after at least two more. SEC has no exit fee. Even if Missouri had accepted an SEC offer the chances they would leave if Delany called were high. A black eye for the SEC. Why risk it? With a school that had their hearts set on the B1G???

OU, OTOH, would make a traveling partner for A&M, as the state of Texas was the prize. Easy sell for Slive to the members of the SEC. The argument was simple. If OU was good enough for the snooty PAC Presidents, they should be okay as an addition. If they turned him down, no black eye as they were already headed to the PAC anyway.

Fast forward to the next summer, 2011. The LHN was wreaking havoc among the members of the Big XII (and in the offices of the NCAA). When Loftin called Slive, he wasted no time.

Deaton and Boren fly down to CS to meet with Loftin in a last ditch effort to get us to stay. (Remember Deaton is the chairman of the Big XII at the time.) I wish I was a fly on the wall for that conversation and the conversation between Boren and Deaton on the flight back. Because after that meeting, things got very dicey for the Big XII.

Oklahoma was still on the fence and beholden to little brother OSU. OSU wasn't getting an invite to the SEC, period. Boren turns back to the PAC, Dodds turns to the ACC, he says in a counter move to get Scott to back off. Scott really doesn't want just OU and OSU without tu, and he doesn't issue the invitation. Neither, for that matter, does the ACC, as Dodds wants to keep the LHN and bring tech, OU, and OSU with them.

As the Big XII teeters once again, Delany doesn't call. Missouri now knows the B1G has other plans that don't include them. They try to institute changes in the revenue distributions, get Beebe out and a Big 8 guy, Neinas in as Big XII commissioner. Dodds goes along with as he doesn't have any better options than the Big XII and OU seems on board with Missouri.

Something else happens in late September 2011. I'm not sure exactly what it was, but Missouri had had enough. Their Board votes to allow Deaton to pursue other options in early October. Deaton abruptly resigns from the chairmanship of the Big XII because of a conflict of interest. (A term apparently unfamiliar to Powers.) OSU's President, Hargis, takes his spot. That's the sign that OU has given up trying to leave the Big XII.

Missouri takes the life saver Slive throws to them.

I know, I know. tldnr

---

I know Dodds was talking about 2010. But you seemed to be saying on page 6 that OU had an SEC offer and in the next paragraph you provided the link to the Dodds youtube video. Maybe the two thoughts weren't related.

quote:

---

How would tu's dwindling viewership numbers affect their ability to jump ship? Sure, they have a "brand," but when it comes down to brass tacks they have had crappy TV numbers the last 5 years. Would the PAC and other conferences look at them and tell them to come back when they can pull above a 0.0?

---

For the cable packages for conference networks viewership doesn't matter as much as you'd think. In non-SEC states the SECN gets something like a nickel or a dime per cable household. In an SEC state that number jumps to something like $1.50. That's why expansion into new states means so much. If the SEC took Texas, no new revenue is added to the conference package but the SECN payout is now divided into 15 pieces instead of 14. So existing members actually lose money. If the Pac-12 took Texas their network then gets a huge boost because the millions of Texas cable households get added as in-state Pac-12 homes.

That's the biggest obstacle to Texas' hoped for SEC membership. They have to hope that their athletic brand and viewership are enough that when SEC officials renegotiated the SECN contract with ESPN that the entire payout is raised so substantially that the total payout offsets their lack of an in-state boost in Texas. I think the numbers worked out so that if Texas joined the only way they do offset the lack of new cable households is if the new SECN deal made it so existing cable households pay an additional .50 (bringing the total to nearly $2). Considering the failure of the LHN and the outlandishness of even an NFL team being able to command such a pay bump AND the fact that ESPN is cutting costs...the Horns can't make the numbers work. They are solely hoping that their academics and historical brand overcome finances. Practically speaking though, if the finances don't add up and your reputation is garbage and you have three member schools that hate your guts...the door is effectively closed.

quote:

---

You people are the most delusional bunch

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How would tu's dwindling viewership numbers affect their ability to jump ship? Sure, they have a "brand," but when it comes down to brass tacks they have had crappy TV numbers the last 5 years. Would the PAC and other conferences look at them and tell them to come back when they can pull above a 0.0?

---

For the cable packages for conference networks viewership doesn't matter as much as you'd think. In non-SEC states the SECN gets something like a nickel or a dime per cable household. In an SEC state that number jumps to something like $1.50. That's why expansion into new states means so much. If the SEC took Texas, no new revenue is added to the conference package but the SECN payout is now divided into 15 pieces instead of 14. So existing members actually lose money. If the Pac-12 took Texas their network then gets a huge boost because the millions of Texas cable households get added as in-state Pac-12 homes.

That's the biggest obstacle to Texas' hoped for SEC membership. They have to hope that their athletic brand and viewership are enough that when SEC officials renegotiated the SECN contract with ESPN that the entire payout is raised so substantially that the total payout offsets their lack of an in-state boost in Texas. I think the numbers worked out so that if Texas joined the only way they do offset the lack of new cable households is if the new SECN deal made it so existing cable households pay an additional .50 (bringing the total to nearly $2). Considering the failure of the LHN and the outlandishness of even an NFL team being able to command such a pay bump AND the fact that ESPN is cutting costs...the Horns can't make the numbers work. They are solely hoping that their academics and historical brand overcome finances. Practically speaking though, if the finances don't add up and your reputation is garbage and you have three member schools that hate your guts...the door is effectively closed.

---

I think you made the best case there is so far. Texas has exactly 1 option when it comes to moving out of the limp-wristed Big Xii and going to another P5 conference. Negotiate with OU and get them and Kansas to agree to move west to the Pac-12.

But OU and Kansas might have better options - options that don't include Texas. I do believe that both OU and Kansas will be real options for the Big10 in the coming years. Kansas for its basketball brand and OU for its football brand, its pathway to taking the Big 10 market all the way south to the DFW market, and its history/share culture with Nebraska and Kansas. This also keeps the ACC together which hems the SEC in from taking any of the Va or NC teams. That allows the B1G to get better and bigger without helping the SEC jump frog them again.

quote:

---

I know Dodds was talking about 2010. But you seemed to be saying on page 6 that OU had an SEC offer and in the next paragraph you provided the link to the Dodds youtube video. Maybe the two thoughts weren't related.

---

They weren't. That link was posted on landthieves, and I had never seen it before.



Here's something else from landthieves today:

quote:

---

Fox is trying to dangle the Big Ten in front of Boren to slow down whatever's going on with the SEC. Thing is, Fox doesn't have the power to do this, even though we have a habit of making the networks out to be all-powerful in these discussions.

This is simple misdirection, IMO. It is indicative, though, that things are a lot farther along than those of us with me on the outside may perceive.

---

Fox does have power with the B1G, They are the BTN partner. And a bidder for the upcoming TV contracts. And Fox controls OU's Tier 3 rights.

The stubborn belief that the SEC has anything to gain from adding OU is blinding some to any other possibility.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How would tu's dwindling viewership numbers affect their ability to jump ship? Sure, they have a "brand," but when it comes down to brass tacks they have had crappy TV numbers the last 5 years. Would the PAC and other conferences look at them and tell them to come back when they can pull above a 0.0?

---

For the cable packages for conference networks viewership doesn't matter as much as you'd think. In non-SEC states the SECN gets something like a nickel or a dime per cable household. In an SEC state that number jumps to something like $1.50. That's why expansion into new states means so much. If the SEC took Texas, no new revenue is added to the conference package but the SECN payout is now divided into 15 pieces instead of 14. So existing members actually lose money. If the Pac-12 took Texas their network then gets a huge boost because the millions of Texas cable households get added as in-state Pac-12 homes.

That's the biggest obstacle to Texas' hoped for SEC membership. They have to hope that their athletic brand and viewership are enough that when SEC officials renegotiated the SECN contract with ESPN that the entire payout is raised so substantially that the total payout offsets their lack of an in-state boost in Texas. I think the numbers worked out so that if Texas joined the only way they do offset the lack of new cable households is if the new SECN deal made it so existing cable households pay an additional .50 (bringing the total to nearly $2). Considering the failure of the LHN and the outlandishness of even an NFL team being able to command such a pay bump AND the fact that ESPN is cutting costs...the Horns can't make the numbers work. They are solely hoping that their academics and historical brand overcome finances. Practically speaking though, if the finances don't add up and your reputation is garbage and you have three member schools that hate your guts...the door is effectively closed.

---

I get what you're saying, but if they go to the PAC or somewhere else, they would seemingly have to have better numbers to be able to effectively extend the footprint. I doubt providers would be as willing to pay the $1.50 footprint price for the SECN in Texas if we were pulling UTSA level viewership numbers. So if tu went to the PAC and they tried to renegotiate the newly expanded PACN, I don't think the providers would be willing to fork over the current footprint price for millions of more sets in Texas if they know tu isn't pulling in those sets.

LOL. Now the SEC is a back-up plan?? Landthieves again:

quote:

---

It could be that FOX is dangling OU/ KU in front of the Big Ten and the B1G is saying sweeten the pot a lot more and we can make it happen?

Some of the better TV ratings for FOX have been their OU broadcast The FOX network has a very good relationship with OU.. OU has helped FOX personnel gain experience at OU's new state of the art TV production facilities.

All the talk about OU moving to the SEC talk could have been Borens way of motivating the TV networks and B1G, by forcing the issue.If that didn't work the SEC could easily be Boren's backup plan.

---

quote:

---

We coulda been in the SEC

We coulda hired Saban

We coulda beat Alabama with Colt

I'm sensing a recurring theme

---

or

We shoulda been in the SEC

We shoulda hired Saban

We shoulda beat Alabama with Colt.

and then

We woulda been in the SEC

We woulda hired Saban

We woulda beat Alabama with Colt.


Too bad Dodds' theme song is I Did It My Way. No regrets. No do-overs. Life in the Big XII.

quote:

---

As long as Tom Osborne is alive and has the ear of the B1G Commissioner, the sips will never sniff an invite.
That's just the way it is. Sip's reputation is well earned.

---

Powers, the one who dissed the B1G for <snicker> tech, is gone. Maybe Fenves can back into Delany's office with a tube a KY strapped to his back.

quote:

---

If Vince Young and Special Olympic spokesperson Jamal Charles have t.u. degrees... has to be A&M

---

Dude - do not insult Special Olympics like that!

quote:

---

"As I said over the past year or so, the SEC has had no particular interest in expansion. We were, and are, happy with 12 teams. If Texas A&M's President, Dr. Bowen Loftin had not called me in late July, we had no plans to explore adding an institution.

"However, when President Loftin called we became interested. Texas A&M is an outstanding academic institution with an exceptional athletic program, passionate fans and wonderful traditions. While the SEC wasn't thinking about expansion, it was impossible not to be interested in Texas A&M. As you can see from the unamimous vote of our twelve Presidents/Chancellors, we would very much like to have Texas A&M as a member of our conference.

"When Texas A&M joins our conference we don't have immediate plans for a 14th member. We aren't thinking in terms of numbers. We think about the strength of the SEC and the attractiveness of Texas A&M as an institution."

---

http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/35066-sec-commissioner-slive-talks-conference-alignment/">http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?/topic/35066-sec-commissioner-slive-talks-conference-alignment/

Shoulda, coulda, woulda

quote:

---

For the cable packages for conference networks viewership doesn't matter as much as you'd think. In non-SEC states the SECN gets something like a nickel or a dime per cable household. In an SEC state that number jumps to something like $1.50. That's why expansion into new states means so much. If the SEC took Texas, no new revenue is added to the conference package but the SECN payout is now divided into 15 pieces instead of 14. So existing members actually lose money. If the Pac-12 took Texas their network then gets a huge boost because the millions of Texas cable households get added as in-state Pac-12 homes.

That's the biggest obstacle to Texas' hoped for SEC membership. They have to hope that their athletic brand and viewership are enough that when SEC officials renegotiated the SECN contract with ESPN that the entire payout is raised so substantially that the total payout offsets their lack of an in-state boost in Texas. I think the numbers worked out so that if Texas joined the only way they do offset the lack of new cable households is if the new SECN deal made it so existing cable households pay an additional .50 (bringing the total to nearly $2). Considering the failure of the LHN and the outlandishness of even an NFL team being able to command such a pay bump AND the fact that ESPN is cutting costs...the Horns can't make the numbers work. They are solely hoping that their academics and historical brand overcome finances. Practically speaking though, if the finances don't add up and your reputation is garbage and you have three member schools that hate your guts...the door is effectively closed.

---

While your underlying logic is sound, you are wrong on the bolded part. The SEC gets $0.40 per cable household per month in "out of network" States. The B1G Network is the one who gets $0.05 per household out of network.

The SEC was almost too successful in its negotiations that they have even made adding States like NC and VA nearly unprofitable. Crazy when you understand that UNC and VA possess 6 of the Top 40 Media Markets in America. Even adding all six, it will be hard for the SEC to justify it to the other 14 members from a gross revenue perspective.

Just curious, but what would the chances be that if realignment started, of the SEC preemptively taking a VA school and a NC school even if breaking even or taking a slight loss initially, just in case college football ever evolved into 4 16-team superconferences?

quote:

---

The PAC isn't that stupid. The whole reason they want to get into the Central Time Zone is visibility. Ditto their rights holders. They'll schedule accordingly. A night game in Pullman or Corvallis involving a former Big XII team will only happen every few years, if at all.

---

But for the PAC the schedule would be an issue. Do you schedule a highly ranked Oregon/tu game in Austin at the end of September? Heat, humidity and travel would be tough for the Oregon team to overcome.

quote:

---

Just curious, but what would the chances be that if realignment started, of the SEC preemptively taking a VA school and a NC school even if breaking even or taking a slight loss initially, just in case college football ever evolved into 4 16-team superconferences?

---

Depends on if they are "gettable". Do they even want to move??

If so, will the ACC let them go in exchange for some Big XII teams?? Would ESPN AND Fox be on-board with that?? Would adding tu make the ACC network very viable??

This all has to be nailed down. It isn't like a trade for X school and a school to be named later.

A lot of moving parts.