An expansion that includes Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas is the PAC's best possible move. And it would give the PAC a nice border with the SEC and B1G.
If UT, OU, and KU stick together and head to the PAC or SEC, would Nebraska (or Missouri) consider to join them?
If UT, OU, and KU head to the PAC, the B1G and SEC could pick the best of the ACC and then the ACC and Big 12 leftovers merge - and we end up with a P4. Restructure the P4 conference divisions and get Conference Championship TOURNAMENTS and you could have a de-facto playoff first and second rounds that spills into the 4-team CFP - with de-facto bids for the P4 champs.
PAC NORTH: Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Stanford, Cal
PAC SOUTH: USC, UCLA, ARizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado
PAC EAST: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech, Iowa St., Nebraska(!)
SEC WEST: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St.
SEC EAST: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
SEC SOUTH: Alabama, Auburn, Florida St., Clemson, NC State, Miami
[Nice annual cross-division games with Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, Florida-FSU, South Carolina-Clemson, Virginia Tech-NC State]
B1G EAST: Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Penn St., Rutgers, Indiana
B1G WEST: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
B1G SOUTH: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt(!)
ACC NORTH: West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, UConn
ACC SOUTH: Wake, Louisville, Cincinnati, UCF, USF
ACC WEST: TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Houston/Memphis
Major independents: Notre Dame (ACC), BYU(WCC), Navy(Patriot), Army(Patriot)
Rose: PAC-B1G
Sugar: SEC-PAC/B1G
Orange: ACC-SEC/B1G/ND
(09-23-2015 11:31 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe for the SEC, but not Mizzou. At which point, why would Missouri care about the SEC?
Of which, Mizzou is an equal stakeholder, making them as much SEC as Slive or Alabama.
Quote:Any school who would leave would be looking out for their own interests.
Sure, but the athletics department might not get that freedom without some sort or lawsuit and/or settlement. While all contacts are made to be broken, the truth is that neither one of us known the ground truth in this situation. Nor do I think any party is actually interested in finding out.
(09-23-2015 02:02 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2015 11:31 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe for the SEC, but not Mizzou. At which point, why would Missouri care about the SEC?
Of which, Mizzou is an equal stakeholder, making them as much SEC as Slive or Alabama.
Quote:Any school who would leave would be looking out for their own interests.
Sure, but the athletics department might not get that freedom without some sort or lawsuit and/or settlement. While all contacts are made to be broken, the truth is that neither one of us known the ground truth in this situation. Nor do I think any party is actually interested in finding out.
I say don't let the door hit them in the arse on the way out. Tepid doesn't cut it in the SEC. We don't have a single other school with the slightest division in the fan base. Arkansas folks just want some more neighbors and by neighbors they are really talking Oklahoma and Texas. Without Missouri we would be able to take both Oklahoma's and another Texas school. That said I think 5th is in the vast minority of the Missouri fan base, but may be more in step with some of their academics. Too bad but given today's economic realities neither group will be involved as much with decisions as in the past.
IMO Mizzou was just lucky that A&M needed a travel companion and that the SEC wasn't sold on WVU. They are what they are, a border state. They don't belong in the PAC, would blend into the Big 10 or SEC but really are not truly a Big 10 or SEC school. If not for the history of 1861 to 1865 they would never have been considered to be Southern. Truth be told much of the SEC is still trying to get used to them being here. So if they left now I doubt there would be much of a ripple in our pond.
(09-23-2015 02:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2015 02:02 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-23-2015 11:31 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe for the SEC, but not Mizzou. At which point, why would Missouri care about the SEC?
Of which, Mizzou is an equal stakeholder, making them as much SEC as Slive or Alabama.
Quote:Any school who would leave would be looking out for their own interests.
Sure, but the athletics department might not get that freedom without some sort or lawsuit and/or settlement. While all contacts are made to be broken, the truth is that neither one of us known the ground truth in this situation. Nor do I think any party is actually interested in finding out.
I say don't let the door hit them in the arse on the way out. Tepid doesn't cut it in the SEC. We don't have a single other school with the slightest division in the fan base. Arkansas folks just want some more neighbors and by neighbors they are really talking Oklahoma and Texas. Without Missouri we would be able to take both Oklahoma's and another Texas school. That said I think 5th is in the vast minority of the Missouri fan base, but may be more in step with some of their academics. Too bad but given today's economic realities neither group will be involved as much with decisions as in the past.
IMO Mizzou was just lucky that A&M needed a travel companion and that the SEC wasn't sold on WVU. They are what they are, a border state. They don't belong in the PAC, would blend into the Big 10 or SEC but really are not truly a Big 10 or SEC school. If not for the history of 1861 to 1865 they would never have been considered to be Southern. Truth be told much of the SEC is still trying to get used to them being here. So if they left now I doubt there would be much of a ripple in our pond.
I'd say that is pretty accurate. The fan base in general is like any other fan base, happy when they win, making the surroundings look all the more rosy. 2012 was not such a scene, with plenty second guessing the move. But since then we have been constant winners, which people love, obviously.
I don't think we would ever go to the PAC...it would be an absolutely last resort type situation. If we were to ever leave the SEC, the only place we would go would be the B1G. That in and of itself is questionable at best.
I think ANY potential move to the B1G would require 2 components. 1. Money/equity in the BTN. The new TV contract will be large, but after getting equal revenue sharing right away in the SEC, it is a card our administration can play. 2. kansas is a part of the deal. Some of my fellow fans might not agree, but that would be a pretty big deal if we could go to the B1G as a package and reunite with Nebraska.
@vandiver49. SEC has equal revenue sharing....not equity in the SECN. There is a difference. There would be no lawsuits against missouri if they left the conference. Do a little research into ownership of the SECN and media rights.
JR is correct, Missouri is a border state. 90% of folks would describe us as a "midwestern" state, but there are those 10% who are ardently opposed. We blend into alot of places, but don't really belong in any.
(09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]Is there no GOR in the SEC?
No, there is not.
Is there also no exit fee? Not suggesting Mizzou should take a BIG invite but just curious.
(09-24-2015 09:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]Is there no GOR in the SEC?
No, there is not.
Is there also no exit fee? Not suggesting Mizzou should take a BIG invite but just curious.
There is no exit fee either I don't believe. If any school wants to leave, they can leave and lose nothing (monetarily speaking).
It is both the biggest strength of the SEC, and its biggest weakness.
(09-24-2015 10:36 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 09:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]Is there no GOR in the SEC?
No, there is not.
Is there also no exit fee? Not suggesting Mizzou should take a BIG invite but just curious.
There is no exit fee either I don't believe. If any school wants to leave, they can leave and lose nothing (monetarily speaking).
It is both the biggest strength of the SEC, and its biggest weakness.
There is no exit fee. There is no GOR with the Conference. There are obligations to ESPN with regards to the SECN. And there may be some loans that need to be repaid. But tell me how it is a weakness? We are the best paid conference in the nation and before you chirp about the Big 10's future media deal understand that our payouts balloon another 9 million plus beginning in 2017 because that is when all overhead is cleared for the network. Considering that contributions, gate, concessions and licensing are fairly lucrative the SEC is considered by Forbes and others to be the best paid sports conference in the NCAA.
If somebody wants to leave that then fine. But other than Georgia Tech and Tulane and Suwanee nobody has left. It didn't work out very well for any of those three economically. I don't think that trend will change and to date the CIC hasn't doled out any extra money for research. They just reshuffle what's already there, which by the way is why North Carolina, Virginia and Duke continue to raise the middle finger to both the Big 10 and SEC. They don't live for sports and the CIC can't really add to their coffers.
(09-24-2015 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 10:36 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 09:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]Is there no GOR in the SEC?
No, there is not.
Is there also no exit fee? Not suggesting Mizzou should take a BIG invite but just curious.
There is no exit fee either I don't believe. If any school wants to leave, they can leave and lose nothing (monetarily speaking).
It is both the biggest strength of the SEC, and its biggest weakness.
There is no exit fee. There is no GOR with the Conference. There are obligations to ESPN with regards to the SECN. And there may be some loans that need to be repaid. But tell me how it is a weakness? We are the best paid conference in the nation and before you chirp about the Big 10's future media deal understand that our payouts balloon another 9 million plus beginning in 2017 because that is when all overhead is cleared for the network. Considering that contributions, gate, concessions and licensing are fairly lucrative the SEC is considered by Forbes and others to be the best paid sports conference in the NCAA.
If somebody wants to leave that then fine. But other than Georgia Tech and Tulane and Suwanee nobody has left. It didn't work out very well for any of those three economically. I don't think that trend will change and to date the CIC hasn't doled out any extra money for research. They just reshuffle what's already there, which by the way is why North Carolina, Virginia and Duke continue to raise the middle finger to both the Big 10 and SEC. They don't live for sports and the CIC can't really add to their coffers.
Jr,
Now you know that raising our middle fingers to anyone is not really "our" style, but your point is well taken.
(09-24-2015 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 10:36 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 09:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:16 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]Is there no GOR in the SEC?
No, there is not.
Is there also no exit fee? Not suggesting Mizzou should take a BIG invite but just curious.
There is no exit fee either I don't believe. If any school wants to leave, they can leave and lose nothing (monetarily speaking).
It is both the biggest strength of the SEC, and its biggest weakness.
There is no exit fee. There is no GOR with the Conference. There are obligations to ESPN with regards to the SECN. And there may be some loans that need to be repaid. But tell me how it is a weakness? We are the best paid conference in the nation and before you chirp about the Big 10's future media deal understand that our payouts balloon another 9 million plus beginning in 2017 because that is when all overhead is cleared for the network. Considering that contributions, gate, concessions and licensing are fairly lucrative the SEC is considered by Forbes and others to be the best paid sports conference in the NCAA.
If somebody wants to leave that then fine. But other than Georgia Tech and Tulane and Suwanee nobody has left. It didn't work out very well for any of those three economically. I don't think that trend will change and to date the CIC hasn't doled out any extra money for research. They just reshuffle what's already there, which by the way is why North Carolina, Virginia and Duke continue to raise the middle finger to both the Big 10 and SEC. They don't live for sports and the CIC can't really add to their coffers.
Look, I was just pointing out the facts. It is a huge strength to be in the SEC, no doubt, but the distance between the SEC and the B1G (right now) isn't very big...and the B1G will likely surpass the SEC with their new contract.
It is also a weakness for the exact reason we are discussing, a team can leave scot free anytime they like. Not that they will...just that it is a possibility.
Academic money dwarfs athletic money, that is just a fact. The B1G/CIC is a better academic conference than the SEC. It is the way it is.
As for the TV money, the SECN made a profit ahead of schedule, which moved up the timeline for your 2017 $9mil increase. That will actually payout this year....the announced $31.2 figure. SEC makes roughly $25m per school from TV money.
The B1G has also seen a bump in TV revenue over the past year with the additions of Rutgers and Maryland. Purdue leaked that they made $32m this year. A bit of that is misleading because the 3 newest additions are still in "junior member" status, making less, but 11 of the 14 made $32m this season. The new deal is estimated to net each school roughly $44m just in TV money. That would be $12m more than the SEC total payout, just on TV money alone.
Certainly an interesting discussion though.
(09-25-2015 09:44 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 10:36 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (09-24-2015 09:04 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ] (09-22-2015 10:42 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ]No, there is not.
Is there also no exit fee? Not suggesting Mizzou should take a BIG invite but just curious.
There is no exit fee either I don't believe. If any school wants to leave, they can leave and lose nothing (monetarily speaking).
It is both the biggest strength of the SEC, and its biggest weakness.
There is no exit fee. There is no GOR with the Conference. There are obligations to ESPN with regards to the SECN. And there may be some loans that need to be repaid. But tell me how it is a weakness? We are the best paid conference in the nation and before you chirp about the Big 10's future media deal understand that our payouts balloon another 9 million plus beginning in 2017 because that is when all overhead is cleared for the network. Considering that contributions, gate, concessions and licensing are fairly lucrative the SEC is considered by Forbes and others to be the best paid sports conference in the NCAA.
If somebody wants to leave that then fine. But other than Georgia Tech and Tulane and Suwanee nobody has left. It didn't work out very well for any of those three economically. I don't think that trend will change and to date the CIC hasn't doled out any extra money for research. They just reshuffle what's already there, which by the way is why North Carolina, Virginia and Duke continue to raise the middle finger to both the Big 10 and SEC. They don't live for sports and the CIC can't really add to their coffers.
Look, I was just pointing out the facts. It is a huge strength to be in the SEC, no doubt, but the distance between the SEC and the B1G (right now) isn't very big...and the B1G will likely surpass the SEC with their new contract.
It is also a weakness for the exact reason we are discussing, a team can leave scot free anytime they like. Not that they will...just that it is a possibility.
Academic money dwarfs athletic money, that is just a fact. The B1G/CIC is a better academic conference than the SEC. It is the way it is.
As for the TV money, the SECN made a profit ahead of schedule, which moved up the timeline for your 2017 $9mil increase. That will actually payout this year....the announced $31.2 figure. SEC makes roughly $25m per school from TV money.
The B1G has also seen a bump in TV revenue over the past year with the additions of Rutgers and Maryland. Purdue leaked that they made $32m this year. A bit of that is misleading because the 3 newest additions are still in "junior member" status, making less, but 11 of the 14 made $32m this season. The new deal is estimated to net each school roughly $44m just in TV money. That would be $12m more than the SEC total payout, just on TV money alone.
Certainly an interesting discussion though.
The CIC doesn't generate revenue. It doesn't redistribute revenue. It finds way to coordinate bids on grants by utilizing the best aspects of member schools to work on parts of a major project. It has nothing to do with athletics, has added precious little to Nebraska's grant money, and will do only as much with Missouri as whatever grant aspects are best suited for Mizzou disciplines. It simply isn't what you are making it out to be. It's certainly strong, but only as strong as the grant money that its member institutions could pull anyway. There are certainly other academic consortium out there.
As for the SEC all start up costs were front-loaded. There will be another bump and it will come in 2017. The difference will wind up being plus or minus 2 million between the two conferences. Also I think TV money has peaked. We'll wait and see what the Big 10 gets.
Political winds are shifting. I wouldn't want to hitch my star to any conference from the Northern Mid West. It will be indeed an interesting future. But then that is part of a three part Chinese curse isn't it?
(09-29-2015 08:02 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2015 05:21 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure if relevant but thread at Shaggy on members there wanting out of the B12.
http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthr...Conference
Fan base venting like all others not doing well. I know 
It doesn't matter. The fans at Texas, the students at Texas, and the faculty at Texas will all take a back seat to whatever it is that the Big Cigars (Shaggy lingo) want to do.
(09-29-2015 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2015 08:02 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2015 05:21 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure if relevant but thread at Shaggy on members there wanting out of the B12.
http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthr...Conference
Fan base venting like all others not doing well. I know
It doesn't matter. The fans at Texas, the students at Texas, and the faculty at Texas will all take a back seat to whatever it is that the Big Cigars (Shaggy lingo) want to do.
I'm sure there are Big Cigars that want a better conference schedule as well. That the real issue with Texas; too many leaders and influential persons with divergent interests.
Add Cincinnati and East Carolina, put them in the East and bump Mizzou to the West, call it a done deal
Unless the ACC GOR goes away, who is there to add? The SEC doesn't need content...they've got plenty of that. The SEC doesn't really need Oklahoma....
East Carolina gets them in the door in North Carolina, and Cincinnati gets them in Ohio
The SEC scored mightily in the last go round with Texas A&M and Mizzou...excellent expansion candidates
(09-30-2015 03:10 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Add Cincinnati and East Carolina, put them in the East and bump Mizzou to the West, call it a done deal
Unless the ACC GOR goes away, who is there to add? The SEC doesn't need content...they've got plenty of that. The SEC doesn't really need Oklahoma....
East Carolina gets them in the door in North Carolina, and Cincinnati gets them in Ohio
The SEC scored mightily in the last go round with Texas A&M and Mizzou...excellent expansion candidates
Need Oklahoma? Not really. Want Oklahoma? Absolutely. They deliver a school with a an academic rating above that of our mean, a new state, a large city from another important state (DFW), a national brand, and oodles of content. Of the remaining schools that the SEC would accept without question they would be right in there with North Carolina and Virginia Tech.
But as to needing them it should be remembered that if they are with us, they can't be used by another conference against us. Adding them only increases our stranglehold on content.
Who for #16 is more of the debatable question.
(10-06-2015 04:56 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2015 03:10 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Add Cincinnati and East Carolina, put them in the East and bump Mizzou to the West, call it a done deal
Unless the ACC GOR goes away, who is there to add? The SEC doesn't need content...they've got plenty of that. The SEC doesn't really need Oklahoma....
East Carolina gets them in the door in North Carolina, and Cincinnati gets them in Ohio
The SEC scored mightily in the last go round with Texas A&M and Mizzou...excellent expansion candidates
Need Oklahoma? Not really. Want Oklahoma? Absolutely. They deliver a school with a an academic rating above that of our mean, a new state, a large city from another important state (DFW), a national brand, and oodles of content. Of the remaining schools that the SEC would accept without question they would be right in there with North Carolina and Virginia Tech.
But as to needing them it should be remembered that if they are with us, they can't be used by another conference against us. Adding them only increases our stranglehold on content.
Who for #16 is more of the debatable question.
Here is my Ideal scenario of adding to the SEC:
add oklahoma and kansas. Move Mizzou to the west while bama and Auburn go East.
Go to 9 game conference schedule. 7 in division, 2 opposite (play every team once every 4 years. Quicker than what we have now).
By moving bama and auburn to the east, you get to keep some of your precious rivalries yearly, while also restarting some in the west. Pretty solid if you ask me.
West:
Mizzou
Kansas
A&M
Arkansas
LSU
Oklahoma
Ole Miss
MS State
East:
Bama
Auburn
South Carolina
Vandy
Florida
Georgia
Tenn
Kentucky
Even with Oklahoma the SEC would need at least one other Texas school to help tie those 26 Million Texans to the SEC. It should be a school that would have a reason to bind the fan that does not have much of an allegiance to any school already. Texas Tech? Nah too far and too remote. TCU? Nah, Oklahoma already covers DFW. Tejas? It would be great, but they aren't going to join the SEC, period.
That just leaves Baylor for #16 (you just can't beat a bunch of Baptists in the South).
(10-07-2015 09:24 AM)5thTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (10-06-2015 04:56 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2015 03:10 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]Add Cincinnati and East Carolina, put them in the East and bump Mizzou to the West, call it a done deal
Unless the ACC GOR goes away, who is there to add? The SEC doesn't need content...they've got plenty of that. The SEC doesn't really need Oklahoma....
East Carolina gets them in the door in North Carolina, and Cincinnati gets them in Ohio
The SEC scored mightily in the last go round with Texas A&M and Mizzou...excellent expansion candidates
Need Oklahoma? Not really. Want Oklahoma? Absolutely. They deliver a school with a an academic rating above that of our mean, a new state, a large city from another important state (DFW), a national brand, and oodles of content. Of the remaining schools that the SEC would accept without question they would be right in there with North Carolina and Virginia Tech.
But as to needing them it should be remembered that if they are with us, they can't be used by another conference against us. Adding them only increases our stranglehold on content.
Who for #16 is more of the debatable question.
Here is my Ideal scenario of adding to the SEC:
add oklahoma and kansas. Move Mizzou to the west while bama and Auburn go East.
Go to 9 game conference schedule. 7 in division, 2 opposite (play every team once every 4 years. Quicker than what we have now).
By moving bama and auburn to the east, you get to keep some of your precious rivalries yearly, while also restarting some in the west. Pretty solid if you ask me.
West:
Mizzou
Kansas
A&M
Arkansas
LSU
Oklahoma
Ole Miss
MS State
East:
Bama
Auburn
South Carolina
Vandy
Florida
Georgia
Tenn
Kentucky
Yep, we've kicked that one around already and it would work. OU / KU, OU / OSU, OU / 2nd Texas school all work the same way. It creates essentially a Western group of rivals and an Eastern group of rivals and ends the need for permanent crossovers and makes travel easier for everyone. But it is where we need to be headed indeed.
(10-07-2015 11:51 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]Even with Oklahoma the SEC would need at least one other Texas school to help tie those 26 Million Texans to the SEC. It should be a school that would have a reason to bind the fan that does not have much of an allegiance to any school already. Texas Tech? Nah too far and too remote. TCU? Nah, Oklahoma already covers DFW. Tejas? It would be great, but they aren't going to join the SEC, period.
That just leaves Baylor for #16 (you just can't beat a bunch of Baptists in the South).
OU and another Texas school that's not UT? Would be better off with WVU or ECU