(10-09-2017 05:15 AM)otown Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:12 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:37 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  The day they are added to the Big 12 is the day Texas and OU will bolt

And go where? The PAC-12 is not any better than the Big 12...And the SEC is not adding any more.

We most certainly would add either or both of those. Those two take our economic impact from over 7 billion to 10 billion.

I do not hear that at all in my circles. At least not from a lot of Florida boosters. In addition, I think you underestimate the bad blood between TAM and Texas and why the breakup happened.

You would hear it among the presidents if it were to become a possibility (if the presidents weren't so secretive). That pair has been on the radar since '91 and each have been in actual discussions with the SEC several different time over the last 25 years. It is only fan fiction that there is resistance. Oklahoma is at our academic mean and Texas improves it.

I don't think you could get accurate information on realignment from boosters anywhere. Most coaches aren't even in the loop until the the process is well down the road and the A.D. tells them, and the A.D.'s don't find out until they need to know.

When information starts leaking out usually the deals are in place and the fans are being sold on the moves. It's still a few years away from the window where any kind of credible information would be leaking out. But economically speaking there isn't a pair anywhere that would add more to the bottom line than that pair would. And that goes for any conference.

Furthermore there is no blackball power by any single institution. It takes a 3/4's vote for membership. There aren't any presidents in the SEC that would vote against a Texas inclusion. The Aggies president might vote against them in the straw vote (which is the official vote) but the most he could do in the formal vote would be to abstain. All SEC membership votes end unanimously. The voice vote (straw poll) is where we have nays and discuss the reason. Once a candidate gets 3/4's our protocol covers the nays with the official vote which shall be unanimous. It's just good business to start new relationships without bad blood, even if the new relationship is an old one.

Besides if Texas were steered to the SEC it would be ESPN that was backing them. In '91 the conference was more in control of realignment. In 2011 it was the network that was more in control. Since any conference won't add a member that doesn't add to the bottom line, and since the networks control the valuations of the candidates, it is the network which now says whether that school will earn us more or less.

There isn't a network or provider out there that would say no to fuller control of Texas or Oklahoma. They are the #2 & #3 highest valued programs in the nation. Alabama is #4 and Ohio State is #1. The SEC has 5 of the top 10 and is the highest valued conference. Taking that pair cements that position for the foreseeable future and the economic impact should account for between 5 to 6 million more per year per SEC school in our media rights deal.

When schools like those want to discuss future moves they conduct that in almost total secrecy. 2010-1 was a gross exception and the deals blew up.

So when Finebaum, or Dennis Dodds, or any of the talking heads are yammering about somebody's possible inclusion they are usually generating business in the off season or floating trial balloons. And those who follow twitter leaks or the "Dude" of anywhere speak it's almost always conjecture at best and trolling at worst. And if it is a booster usually what has happened is the booster suggests an idea to a coach and the coaches now are pretty savvy about just agreeing with whatever the booster suggests, but in a non committal way. That way the booster feels like he/she has inside information and in reality they know nothing.