(01-30-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 12:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Please understand I am not trying to be cynical or contrary. I follow the playful, yet thoughtful, models presented by the majority of you. I understand opportunities opening, competitiveness, and the importance of broadcasting contracts.
What is being delivered is a lot of PROCESS. What's being implied, is to have fewer, but much larger power conferences. So, the desire is to have 4, maybe even just 3, super-duper conferences. Some take it to just 2 or even one, as truly elite. All else is tiered downwards. OK, there can be structurally and process arguments there. But what is the GOAL or the ultimate OUTCOME sought? Stability? Major revenue enhancements? Narrowing the elite club, but why? Giving corporate media, one that is more monopolized, greater control of conferences in exchange for greater payouts? That last one is not necessarily a cause-effect matter, particularly for the long term. Never relinquish permanent negotiating power in exchange for a dated financial set-up.

I am not opposed to the SEC moving to 16 if a couple of real jewels come their way. Stop there! Not every school with fortitude belongs in the SEC. Who is the SEC going to compete against? The rust belt, northeast, and west coast? It doesn't make sense for an extreme, one-sided model, whereby competition is more incestuous than external.
And a season in any college sport have definitive available days to compete. Many here want to extend conference games, add more games for playoffs, etc. There's a point in which absurdity, impractically, and logistical dysfunction are reached.
Again, my point is not focused on individual posters; and I realize I am inviting further disagreement. But having unlimited parameters when it comes to expansion needs a plausible rationale that isn't sufficiently defended, let alone clarified.
If I am totally confused, perhaps I am if there is a global perspective I've missed. It just looks like more hurt for many schools, and the favored may be jumping into an arena not knowing how or when the lions come out.

I hear ya! Kramer and the presidents soaked all of that in when discussing what would become the '92 realignment.

Based on their conclusions they wanted to expand into the similar culture of the Southwest. The wanted brand consolidation for the sake of the SEC in the Southeast.

So nearly 30 years ago they saw Florida State and Clemson as the brand consolidating schools. Looking at the present day situation I'd have to say they were dead on target. Would there be any argument over the SEC's domination of the Southeast if those two schools were in the SEC? ESPN realized this too and that is why they need those two schools to hold enough value in the ACC to keep it together.

Texas, A&M and Oklahoma were on the target list way back then, as was what was a healthier Arkansas.

Plans? L.S.U. had been a historic rival of A&M. Arkansas was a bridge to Texas. The concept was that if you had Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and A&M you owned everything of value in the SWC (OU being Big 8). Add Clemson and Florida State to that mix and the SEC not only dominates its region, but expands that reason with huge markets in the Arkansas/Oklahoma/Texas region which due to their proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana seemed to be a natural way to expand. Much more natural than moving North of Kentucky or into Virginia. I'd have to say that the SEC has long eyeballed North Carolina.

There's your most likely, and rational targets. But we've been forced to amend our growth. South Carolina was taken as #2 to Arkansas because it was seen as a potential bridge to North Carolina. So the Gamecocks took Clemson's spot in the original plan to 16. We landed Arkansas and A&M. The odd add was Missouri but the Tigers were seen as a potential market add and the cornerstone of the Northwest boundary of the SEC. They've essentially taken Florida State's slot.

The game for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Texas and the reason is not just adding two brands (although that's certainly a part) but rather owning the most SEC like brands in the region to maintain Conference Identity and Conference Quality.

Iowa State doesn't do that and historically they haven't really been that close to Texas. The same may be said of Kansas.

Just as it became apparent that as long as the SEC's rights were held by ESPN we wouldn't be financially rewarded for taking Clemson and F.S.U. now that 30 years has passed and Texas Tech has grown so much (same with Ok. St.) we may have to alter our perfect model of expansion to the West.

If we hold to 16 that 16 may now have to be Texas and Texas Tech. It fits better with the original plan than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for the intention to dominate the branding with SEC like schools. OU and OSU leave us without domination in the region in which we most need it, Texas.

Personally speaking the original plan was prescient both for the content model we are moving into, and for the maximizing of ad rates if advertisers wanted to reach the Southeast/Southwest, and in terms of those markets and their size.

It should be very apparent right now that South Carolina is not Clemson and that if the SEC was going to dominate the other massive market, Florida, we needed F.S.U. paired with the Gators to do it.

I think 16 is about right as well when it comes to profitability. Would Texas and Oklahoma abandon Tech and State to join? I'm not sure they would. Would the SEC be way ahead of the rest with both of those and would going to 18 to insure it be prudent? In the long haul, yes. Is there more money in going to 20 or more? Right now, and out of the Big 12, no.

Are times slow and any conversation and speculation welcomed? Yes.

Is there anyway to move to 20 and be profitable? Maybe.

I'd say if #19 & #20 were Duke and North Carolina that such a move market wise, academically, and as a content multiplier for hoops could very well be profitable.

Would those two have to come as a pair? (Its the same kind of thinking as Texas/Tech/OSU/OK)

If not, then perhaps we could mix and match and grab Kansas as 19 with UNC or Duke as 20. That would keep us from having to take Iowa State as 20 if we truly were/are interested in Kansas.

Then again, if we are just taking one school from each market we don't really need Tech or OSU, so we could just have Texas and OK and stop at 16.

So maybe the question is: if we take Texas and OK and stop at 16, is there still value in expanding to 18-20 later with ACC properties?

And again, at that point would we just revisit Clemson/FSU or would we still actually consider UNC/Duke over those two? Would Virginia Tech still be in the mix? What about NC State? Would we consider Louisville or other ACC properties? GT/Virginia/Pitt/Miami?

With 2 spots, I would think it would have to be two of UNC/Duke/Clemson/FSU
At 4 spots, I could see considering more properties, but would think it would still come down to those four. Which is odd, since I would think Virginia Tech would bring enough to the table, but I guess the times are changing.