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: 1,783
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: 13,893
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
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
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,783
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1223
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Just a couple of thoughts.

What if the key to getting a deal done with the Big 12 powers is something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Here's my thinking...

I think it's possible that Texas Tech could attempt to ride the coattails of UT, , but it would be an addition purely for political reasons and not content driven.

TCU, by contrast, is in the middle of DFW which eases travel even for teams in that region of the county. Perhaps most importantly, TCU has achieved a level of consistent success that has eluded Texas Tech for the most part. It's flat out hard to recruit to Lubbock whereas TCU is swimming in the middle of one of the largest talent pools in the country.

From a political perspective though, Texas Tech could still probably influence the Legislature to force UT to take them along. Adding TCU though maximizes exposure in every major region of Texas. I think just as important, it keeps travel reasonable for the schools and fans out there. This market is truly gigantic and dominating every corner of it, I think, will pay dividends.

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

Baylor is done most likely after their scandal plagued years, but having 4 TX schools in the Power leagues is a good way to retain regionalism.
10-10-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,893
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1224
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-10-2017 11:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Just a couple of thoughts.

What if the key to getting a deal done with the Big 12 powers is something akin to this...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Here's my thinking...

I think it's possible that Texas Tech could attempt to ride the coattails of UT, , but it would be an addition purely for political reasons and not content driven.

TCU, by contrast, is in the middle of DFW which eases travel even for teams in that region of the county. Perhaps most importantly, TCU has achieved a level of consistent success that has eluded Texas Tech for the most part. It's flat out hard to recruit to Lubbock whereas TCU is swimming in the middle of one of the largest talent pools in the country.

From a political perspective though, Texas Tech could still probably influence the Legislature to force UT to take them along. Adding TCU though maximizes exposure in every major region of Texas. I think just as important, it keeps travel reasonable for the schools and fans out there. This market is truly gigantic and dominating every corner of it, I think, will pay dividends.

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

Baylor is done most likely after their scandal plagued years, but having 4 TX schools in the Power leagues is a good way to retain regionalism.

I think it's certainly an interesting concept. West Virginia then is eligible for the ACC.

But in crunching the valuations Texas and Oklahoma can cover two lesser values and still turn us a profit. They can't cover three and do it. And outside of Texas and Oklahoma there is nobody in the Big 12 that pays their own way, not even Kansas. But that is also true for the Big 10. And since the Big 10 can't take OSU due to academics and they can't take Texas Tech still a problem with academics just not as much of one and they are definite problem logistically. I would think the Big 10 would have to be thinking that if they offered a foursome it would be Kansas and Iowa State to go with Texas and Oklahoma.

Therefore I think Texas and Oklahoma cover their in state schools. So Texa-homa is feasible, but not six. And Texa-homa likely trumps a B1G offer for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

So if you add L.S.U., A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri to the Texa-homa four you get pretty much everything that Texas could want and a lot of things for Oklahoma to build upon. With Texas and A&M you don't need T.C.U. to carry DFW completely. Annual games can still be played at Jerry World for the sake of SEC exposure. A&M/TTU could be played annually at that site, Arkansas / Okl. St., and of course Texas/OU. L.S.U. could schedule a neutral site game in Houston if need be.

But remember if we move on the Big 12 in that kind of a way and succeed then the B1G is going to double down on the ACC in 2035. So we need to save 2 slots for either North Carolina & Duke, or Clemson and Florida State or for North Carolina and Virginia Tech unless we truly want to go gaudy and take 6 to move to 24.
10-11-2017 12:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,305
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1225
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
[quote='AllTideUp' pid='14663280' dateline='1507696066'

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.
[/quote]

I forget the article, but someone tied to KU was asked if the Sec would be interested in adding the Jayhawks and he said the SEC wasn't too interested. This was before Mizzou was added I believe. Kansas investing in their greatest weakness is one way to help ensure they might have a landing spot should the Big 12 implode. I don't see any sec President turning down KU's application unless the payouts decrease.
10-11-2017 12:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,893
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1226
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 12:44 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  [quote='AllTideUp' pid='14663280' dateline='1507696066'

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

I forget the article, but someone tied to KU was asked if the Sec would be interested in adding the Jayhawks and he said the SEC wasn't too interested. This was before Mizzou was added I believe. Kansas investing in their greatest weakness is one way to help ensure they might have a landing spot should the Big 12 implode. I don't see any sec President turning down KU's application unless the payouts decrease.
[/quote]

Attendance, Gross Total Revenue, and projected Business Valuations all are below the SEC MEAN and say the will not add to the bottom line. A state of under 3 million doesn't help their cause either.

For Kansas to be included either ESPN has to pay for them, or they represent a second for either Texas or Oklahoma.
10-11-2017 02:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,783
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1227
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I could see ESPN paying to get Kansas in.

It's a very solid brand in that region of the country and one of the very few national draws for basketball. I know basketball doesn't really pay the bills, but making sure the ratings for the SECN and other ESPN properties are solid through that portion of the year is still a good reason to invest. Especially when we move to a more streaming focused model, ESPN isn't going to want to give customers a reason to only subscribe during certain portions of the year. So I think they'll try to acquire as much good content year round as they can.

I've thought for a while that if ESPN could pick any 4 for the SEC out of the Big 12 that it would be UT, OU, OSU, and KU. It may not be that simple of course.
10-11-2017 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,012
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #1228
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.
10-11-2017 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,893
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1229
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.
10-11-2017 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,012
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #1230
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(10-11-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 12:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have come to believe that the SEC will expand by 4 schools to get to 18 members. They will add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa State.

I would have no particular objection to that.

It was explained to me that the B1G/ACC "merger" was sealed when the B1G made their move with what has been called the worst realignment move ever made; taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I'm looking for the creation of two conferences from the combination. One 12 team conference made up mostly of small public schools and privates, plus Notre Dame. And the other, a 16 team league, consisting of the rest.

The ACC
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana
UVa, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Clemson, and Louisville

The B1G
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Penn State, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Rutgers
Georgia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Florida State
10-11-2017 03:27 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.