(04-23-2018 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.

What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.

I hypothesized about the ideal situation for the SEC was to bring in OU at #15 and then let the cards play out with some kind of guarantee to OU if Texas could not be secured at 16 then OSU would get that spot. Now this could happen before or after welcoming press conferences; watching how Sankey keeps a lid on things, I’m sure he’d prefer it play out behind closed doors