(06-17-2018 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Strategy #2:
We ignore Oklahoma. In fact we ignore them so long that they have to take a deal to the Big 10 with Kansas. Now we don't have to take Oklahoma State. We don't need to consider a putrid Kansas football product. We don't need to think about Iowa State. But what we do is wait. We wait on a pissed off Texas who won't like their options in the PAC, who won't like the idea of forcing their fans to play in the great white North. And who likely only need a good excuse to reclaim rivalries with Arkansas and Texas A&M and who quietly may realize that having Baylor and T.C.U. in the same conference at an elevated status has not benefited the Longhorn program.
ESPN wants Texas. Slive once said that the SEC would be proud to have any or all of the 3 major Texas public schools. (He said this while speaking in Dallas at some function.) If Texas doesn't want Tech tagging along then fine. If they do then fine. If they don't want Tech we offer #16 to West Virginia. If they do want Tech we take them.
What does this do for Texas?
1. In minimizes Oklahoma's recruiting profile in Texas, specifically in Dallas / Ft. Worth. How? They at most would have 1 game a year there and 1 game a year against a Texas school (Texas). Travel for the parents of the Oklahoma recruits from Texas would be extensive. The closest away game would be Kansas. If the kids go to Texas, Texas A&M or Texas Tech they will likely have 6 or 7 games in Texas. This hurts Oklahoma and helps Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech.
2. Baylor and T.C.U. are not promoted to a P5 conference. Why? Baylor doesn't fit the PAC profile. T.C.U. may be a long shot to receive a PAC invitation but without OU or UT heading West I don't think it is likely the PAC will expand. This too benefits Texas. Now major recruits in the state of Texas have two fewer home choices if they want to play in a P conference. More available talent staying in Texas where they are divided among only 3 top Texas programs means all three Texas schools enhance their depth.
3. Carrying the same brand as A&M helps to re-elevate the Longhorn program. The SEC consistently gets the most players drafted by the NFL. That advantage for the Aggies is neutralized and the game once again becomes an annual event, as does Texas / Arkansas, Texas / L.S.U., Texas / Ole Miss, Texas / Missouri, and Texas / Texas Tech remains on the schedule.
4. For the reason of scheduling this move is the best Texas can make outside of staying in the Big 12 and with OU as an annual OOC game they have schedule integrity maintained for key rivals and enhanced for other divisional games.
5. This does make us all more money not only due to the Texas brand but because all P schools in Texas would be SEC properties. And the likely remaining schools in Texas would be ESPN properties through the AAC. This give Texas (And A&M and Tech) the most leverage they will have anywhere outside of the old SWC.
Now what is good for the SEC is point #5 and the fact that by landing Texas there is no way any other conference can catch our value.
If Texas didn't want to keep the OU game for some reason it could be easily replaced with an annual OOC game against Notre Dame or USC depending upon ESPN wishes.
So we don't land Oklahoma. But we land Texas who now contends with a weakened Oklahoma. For the SEC we incorporate an old OOC foe and help to neutralize the other.
IMO, this is also a win. And and as I have pointed out before if it gives ESPN (and the SEC) control over Texas game day advertising it's a win for rights holder as well.
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Maybe we should have a summit? Call it the Treaty of Austin?
On a more serious note, what is the history of the SWC's relationship with the SEC? When that entity was going through dissolution, did they initially seek out merger with the Big 8? Were there ever any discussions with the SEC outside of Arkansas bailing ship?
I don't mind the idea at all of Texas and Texas Tech although I think there are a few factors we have to account for...
If Oklahoma leaves for the Big Ten and in so doing weakens their program, then half the dirty work has been done for UT already. While it is in Texas' interest for OU to head off to the Big Ten and hurt their athletic profile, I don't know if that would make UT long for the SEC in any way.
I think the biggest problem UT will have is competing with A&M for exposure in markets outside of the state of TX. Right now, that is A&M's distinct advantage. It's an athletic one, but in the long run it also makes a difference to what sort of alumni base you have. So in a negotiation, I think we should start there.
Another issue is that the Longhorn Network has decent carriage right now, it just doesn't make a lot of money. You do have studios sitting in Austin though and UT owns half of it so ESPN can't unilaterally decide to shut the thing down without consequences. UT needs a 3rd Tier deal as good or better than what they get with the LHN.
The reason I asked the earlier question about the SWC is because I think Texas mostly wants to play schools that are close by. There's probably some nostalgia for that as well as a motivation to keep travel costs reasonable. That and Texas has always grown fat off the relative weakness of instate rivals. We also live in a world where TV markets are going to matter less so the original reasons for breaking up the SWC won't really define the pay model. In the not too distant past, UT has moved mountains to preserve a core of TX schools within the same league.
Now, it's entirely possible that the UT leadership would prefer to distinguish themselves from the other TX schools, but I don't think the state politicians will allow that to happen. So from UT's perspective, they may be in a situation where they just go with the flow because fighting those priorities is not a matter of life and death for them.
Nonetheless, I think there's a nexus of Texas interests and SEC interests...
With Oklahoma and other schools in the Midwest not getting as many visits to the state of TX, there are more athletes remaining home. So athletically, Texas doesn't need the SEC as much as they might otherwise. What UT does need is more exposure in markets outside of TX and to neutralize some of A&M's advantages.
What Texas also needs is to appease politicians in the state capital and keep more of the fans happy with a more TX based schedule. The SEC can actually accommodate these priorities because we're the only conference within reasonable striking distance, geographically speaking.
I do think the state politicians would like to get Houston in if at all possible. It's the only major public school in TX that isn't already P5 and the future of higher ed in TX will depend on adequately supplying the demand. Lifting Houston up will gain them revenue and exposure so that they can continue to grow and provide for the demands of the state. They don't really get oil money so the boost has got to come from somewhere and we already know that the state has laid out a goal to increase both TTU and UH in stature.
The private schools can't meet that need and virtually every other public school in the state is a part of either the UT or A&M systems. If you told the politicians that UT, A&M, TTU, and UH would be in then I think they take that deal and don't quibble over the others in the slightest.
From the networks' perspective, I wouldn't think they would care. As long as they have UT and A&M then everything else is small potatoes compared to the big 2. If Texas Tech and Houston have decent sized alumni bases that could grow over time and be more likely to attract subs then that's just icing on the cake.
I actually think Houston's lack of overall revenue and subsidization might help their case in a strange way. What it would mean is that they are less likely to be a consistent threat athletically. TCU and Baylor have proven to be a thorn in the side on occasion. UH would grow in stature, but would have a long way to go to be consistently competitive.
If the TX politicians are happy and if UT is happy and if the networks don't care then the only potential snag is what the SEC wants...
But there is an advantage for the SEC as well. If they take 3 more TX schools then they could add an 18th member from another region and expand the footprint. I would suggest West Virginia so that they can have a slice of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.
Another advantage is that Houston is more centrally located to the Western schools so travel becomes a little more reasonable for a host of fan bases...something to mitigate all those trips to Lubbock.
Another advantage is all the direct access to recruits for programs outside the state of TX. Most of the top recruits will stay home and go to UT or A&M. Some will go to TTU and UH, but there's plenty left over for other schools and they can go to the recruits backyard without having to play one of the big boys in the process.
