(07-25-2018 11:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 08:51 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  One of our "friends" at the SEC board thinks that a possible scenario is that OU and UT would be split between the Big Ten and SEC, with the Horns going to the SEC, with Kansas and not Oklahoma. He argues that ties with ESPN - both UT and KU have 3rd-tier deals currently - would draw them into that conference, while Oklahoma has a 3rd-tier deal with Fox Sports.

Personally, I would be happy with KU and OU but what the SEC may decide to do would force radical changes elsewhere. If UT goes SEC with TT then the impact won't be as severe, although that still leaves the entire state of Texas totally in the SEC's hands. UT with KU changes a lot. First, in a content-based world, Kansas basketball would have a higher impact than currently. An SEC with a higher basketball pedigree would mean that competition for eyeballs would be even more intense in the winter months, and that conference had a pretty decent year last season. Couple that with the ACC and if the Big XII is demoted then a lot more basketball talent gets drawn into those two conferences. That is a serious threat to the Big Ten. And that's not factoring if a certain private school in South Bend decides that it should go in full to the ACC as a result of more conference changes.

At the very least the Big Ten should be in background diplomacy with OU for if/when the Big XII breaks apart. OU with CU would be a good counter to the Horns to the SEC. Then, depending on what happens afterwards, offer the California 4.

I do think CU is the stronger move by far for the Big 10 for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are half of the bridge to California and Washington. CU offers the larger market by far in a city rich with Big 10 alums, and I don't see a bright future for the PAC period.

They offer very limited market options for the networks. FOX and ESPN really have gotten all they want out of the PAC with a 50/50 lease of the product. I don't see a rationale for either of them to buy a larger % of the PAC than they already have because each only really gets a 7PM slot and a late slot out of that conference and the late slot is usually the better game.

So if the PAC looks for a better deal they are likely going to go with one of the FAANG companies and that could likely be on a school by school basis to appease USC, Stanford, UW, and few other key schools. If that happens it will be the beginning of the end for that conference as it is presently comported. So CU would be a move to make future Big 10 expansion more lucrative.

But on a side note if Texas and Kansas did head to the SEC, I just think it puts more pressure on N.D. when weighing their long range prospects to consider the monetary difference there would be between a Big 10 with Oklahoma and an SEC with Texas and life in the ACC. If I'm the Big 10 I'm liking my leverage to get N.D. as #16. I'd say that OU and N.D. would be just about a perfect way for the Big 10 to finish itself out. Texas gives the SEC everything they want. Kansas would just be a hoops add for Missouri's sake.

The ACC paid out 28 million this year to the Big 10's 38 million. Next year it will be between 29 million and 30 million for the ACC and between 50 million and 51 million for the B1G. 200 million a decade already has to have N.D. twitchy about their future in the ACC. Should Texas head Southeast and OU head Northern Midwest those payouts on content will take a significant step up. We could be approaching 250 million in difference between the SEC/B1G and ACC. With N.D. added to the Big 10 the difference could be between 275 million and 300 million for a decades worth of revenue. At what price in a world with diminishing charitable contributions, flagging state budgets, and thinning Federal grant money is pride worth 275 to 300 million over 10 years?

How long can we wait for the private school to make a decision like that?

If CU is the bridge west then it stands to reason that the Big Ten may well push further that way. I see 4 scenarios that may be the ultimate end point of all expansion:

CU, OU, AZ, UCLA, Cal, UW

CU, KU, AZ, UCLA, Cal, UW

CU, OU, Cal, USC, Stanford, UCLA

CU, KU, Cal, USC, Stanford, UCLA


In the first two scenarios I could see Stanford and USC going the independent route and spread their other sports among regional conferences. That's not unusual for western programs. USC/Stanford could still play their old rivals in Olympic sports like softball, soccer, etc.. UCLA/USC and Stanford/Cal would be protected. Maybe even both could sign scheduling agreements with the Big Ten/ACC/SEC. That scenario might be enough to spare the other private school from putting their football team in a conference.

Should the California 4 decide that they must stick together then that'd be fine as well.

If the PAC is open season, might as well take all the goods and leave the stragglers. USC, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado. Maybe Utah and someone else to keep it an even 24 (Kansas, Arizona State, etc.). Move Purdue to the east, put Colorado and Utah or Kansas in the current western division, then the remaining eight (Arizona State/Utah/other depending on who the last slots went to) in the Pacific division.