Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,650
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1221
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-12-2017 08:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.

It's actually easier to place 7 if we only take 4. I really do believe the PAC would go after Tech and T.C.U. if they were available. So if we took the original 4 I mentioned. That's 6. WVU to the ACC makes 7. If Baylor loses their voting rights as part of the conference's sanctions that might do it. But that's a lot of ifs.

One of the assumptions I'm making is that Texas would call for Tech to be included so they could play them every year without using an OOC game.

Texas has been pretty good about scheduling good games OOC so I think they will probably want to continue doing that while also playing a healthy portion of regional teams while also playing more marquis match-ups in league. At least, if I was them then that's what I would want.

I'm not sure how attached to Kansas they are. I don't think they were fighting to get them into the PAC a few years ago. Taking all 3 major brands in the Big 12 would probably aid Texas' decision on some level, but I'm not sure UT is as concerned about keeping KU on the schedule as they are schools like Tech.
06-13-2017 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,357
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 670
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1222
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-13-2017 03:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 08:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.

It's actually easier to place 7 if we only take 4. I really do believe the PAC would go after Tech and T.C.U. if they were available. So if we took the original 4 I mentioned. That's 6. WVU to the ACC makes 7. If Baylor loses their voting rights as part of the conference's sanctions that might do it. But that's a lot of ifs.

One of the assumptions I'm making is that Texas would call for Tech to be included so they could play them every year without using an OOC game.

Texas has been pretty good about scheduling good games OOC so I think they will probably want to continue doing that while also playing a healthy portion of regional teams while also playing more marquis match-ups in league. At least, if I was them then that's what I would want.

I'm not sure how attached to Kansas they are. I don't think they were fighting to get them into the PAC a few years ago. Taking all 3 major brands in the Big 12 would probably aid Texas' decision on some level, but I'm not sure UT is as concerned about keeping KU on the schedule as they are schools like Tech.

With SEC brands on their schedule as conference games their need for a quality P5 opponent will be fulfilled in house. They should be able to use 2 of their OOC games to rotate Tech, T.C.U. and Rice.

But hey, I have no problem with Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU except we won't earn as much. I think Kansas makes the better choice #3 and I think Tech would wind up in the PAC with T.C.U.
06-13-2017 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.