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
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1541
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-19-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 01:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Missouri
South: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.
High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.
For fb, extending the season with earlier (August) start, before most colleges are in session; and/or go deeper into January, in order to accommodate, potentially, an enhanced number of playoffs for within conference and post-season, would be new problems depending on the number of divisions within a conference. If post-season goes to 8 team playoffs, that's another week at least. The FCS doesn't have near the intense logistical issues since they use campus sites in the process. Then there's the matter of conflicting with NFL scheduling.
If near all power schools are in one conference, what's the point of having competition (on field or the court)? The conference championship essentially becomes the nat'l champ. Maybe the other conferences' provided competition essentially resides with schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, USC, and Washington, and just those, are in three different conferences.
I never thought 4 power conferences @ 16 each is a realistic design. It is simply too exclusionary; and unlike the NFL, campuses grow, others get smaller, funding and enrollment diminishes some places, while others grow fast, and much happens outside the P5. There's no bumping system. The NFL has centralized governance, dealing with much fewer numbers, and is about one sport, nothing else.
That said, I too like symmetry, defined levels of competition, and each conference playing with the same numbers (relatively).
Gezz, JRsec, you roped me into these conversations. lol.
05-20-2018 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1542
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I still think Kansas showing up is a legitimate possibility.

That and I've always liked 20 better than 18. Breaking everyone up into 3 divisions has its advantages, but I think there are more drawbacks. If you have 4 different regions of 5 then that works pretty well, and not just for football but for many other sports as well.

As others pointed out, you can't really schedule with frequency in mind once you go past 16. You can take an 18 school league and come up with a fairly nice rotation using 9 conference games, but you also create a lot of inequities with regard to teams in the same division getting more home games than others in a given season. With 20, you could always make sure the divisional alignment is fair with regard to home/away match-ups and other factors like travel.

I think schools like Oklahoma and Missouri and others even might be more comfortable if we take a couple of extra schools from the West and go to 20.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State would be a good core group to add.
05-20-2018 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1543
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-20-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Missouri
South: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.
High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.
For fb, extending the season with earlier (August) start, before most colleges are in session; and/or go deeper into January, in order to accommodate, potentially, an enhanced number of playoffs for within conference and post-season, would be new problems depending on the number of divisions within a conference. If post-season goes to 8 team playoffs, that's another week at least. The FCS doesn't have near the intense logistical issues since they use campus sites in the process. Then there's the matter of conflicting with NFL scheduling.
If near all power schools are in one conference, what's the point of having competition (on field or the court)? The conference championship essentially becomes the nat'l champ. Maybe the other conferences' provided competition essentially resides with schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, USC, and Washington, and just those, are in three different conferences.
I never thought 4 power conferences @ 16 each is a realistic design. It is simply too exclusionary; and unlike the NFL, campuses grow, others get smaller, funding and enrollment diminishes some places, while others grow fast, and much happens outside the P5. There's no bumping system. The NFL has centralized governance, dealing with much fewer numbers, and is about one sport, nothing else.
That said, I too like symmetry, defined levels of competition, and each conference playing with the same numbers (relatively).
Gezz, JRsec, you roped me into these conversations. lol.

I would like to believe that we could balance the conferences a bit better with these final moves. I'd like to believe that 16 is a many as we would have to a conference. But market forces are driving a shift (already underway) in the pay model.

In the end these are business moves. Business moves are practically never altruistic. Since what profits the most is the motivation for such moves and since geography, and regional familiarity are a part of making moves not only profitable but sustainable I simply can't rule out a Texa-homa foursome to the SEC. It not only would provide Texas with a division of foes that would please their alumni and donors, but it would also provide them the most reasonable travel options of about any other offer they might receive and at a very profitable return.

It would be great to get just OU and UT and call it a day, but it will be much more palatable for them if their division is a miniature version of the Big 12 only with restored rivalries and ones preserved in the move.

I like our chances.
05-20-2018 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1544
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-20-2018 03:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Missouri
South: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama
North: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina St
East: Auburn, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.
High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.
For fb, extending the season with earlier (August) start, before most colleges are in session; and/or go deeper into January, in order to accommodate, potentially, an enhanced number of playoffs for within conference and post-season, would be new problems depending on the number of divisions within a conference. If post-season goes to 8 team playoffs, that's another week at least. The FCS doesn't have near the intense logistical issues since they use campus sites in the process. Then there's the matter of conflicting with NFL scheduling.
If near all power schools are in one conference, what's the point of having competition (on field or the court)? The conference championship essentially becomes the nat'l champ. Maybe the other conferences' provided competition essentially resides with schools such as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, USC, and Washington, and just those, are in three different conferences.
I never thought 4 power conferences @ 16 each is a realistic design. It is simply too exclusionary; and unlike the NFL, campuses grow, others get smaller, funding and enrollment diminishes some places, while others grow fast, and much happens outside the P5. There's no bumping system. The NFL has centralized governance, dealing with much fewer numbers, and is about one sport, nothing else.
That said, I too like symmetry, defined levels of competition, and each conference playing with the same numbers (relatively).
Gezz, JRsec, you roped me into these conversations. lol.

I would like to believe that we could balance the conferences a bit better with these final moves. I'd like to believe that 16 is a many as we would have to a conference. But market forces are driving a shift (already underway) in the pay model.

In the end these are business moves. Business moves are practically never altruistic. Since what profits the most is the motivation for such moves and since geography, and regional familiarity are a part of making moves not only profitable but sustainable I simply can't rule out a Texa-homa foursome to the SEC. It not only would provide Texas with a division of foes that would please their alumni and donors, but it would also provide them the most reasonable travel options of about any other offer they might receive and at a very profitable return.

It would be great to get just OU and UT and call it a day, but it will be much more palatable for them if their division is a miniature version of the Big 12 only with restored rivalries and ones preserved in the move.

I like our chances.
05-20-2018 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1545
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years
05-25-2018 03:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1546
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-25-2018 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

It really works nicely doesn't it. At 18 you can accomplish this with 10 games. At 20 you can still accomplish it with 10 games. But at 16 you really can do it with 8 and that's why I think many believe it to be the sweet spot.
05-25-2018 03:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1547
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-25-2018 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

You are a night owl's night owl. I tip my hat to you.

This does work very well, but I think adding that 9th game at 16 adds so many advantages with regard to frequency of play. You can also ensure that the pods can be used as rotating divisions and you'd never have to play a conference semi-final.

I know a 9th game guarantees an additional loss for some, but if we get paid adequately for it then I think all the positives outweigh the negatives.
05-25-2018 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1548
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-25-2018 08:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

You are a night owl's night owl. I tip my hat to you.

This does work very well, but I think adding that 9th game at 16 adds so many advantages with regard to frequency of play. You can also ensure that the pods can be used as rotating divisions and you'd never have to play a conference semi-final.

I know a 9th game guarantees an additional loss for some, but if we get paid adequately for it then I think all the positives outweigh the negatives.

Yes, new job has me rotating between day and night shifts so expect some 4 am posts lol.

9th game will only make sense if the SEC office sees it as an improvement to the conference or as a NCAA requirement. Four schools in the east have yearly instate rivalry games, not to mention they wouldn’t mind scheduling some other exciting opponents without making their schedule too difficult to compete for titles.
05-26-2018 01:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1549
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-26-2018 01:40 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 08:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

You are a night owl's night owl. I tip my hat to you.

This does work very well, but I think adding that 9th game at 16 adds so many advantages with regard to frequency of play. You can also ensure that the pods can be used as rotating divisions and you'd never have to play a conference semi-final.

I know a 9th game guarantees an additional loss for some, but if we get paid adequately for it then I think all the positives outweigh the negatives.

Yes, new job has me rotating between day and night shifts so expect some 4 am posts lol.

9th game will only make sense if the SEC office sees it as an improvement to the conference or as a NCAA requirement. Four schools in the east have yearly instate rivalry games, not to mention they wouldn’t mind scheduling some other exciting opponents without making their schedule too difficult to compete for titles.

I like the arrangement. So we should be working to bring the pair of Oklahoma schools on board in 2023-4. So here's the big question. What happens at that point if Texas wants in? If they are Johnny come lately and try to screw up the Oklahoma pair I say we move to 3 divisions of 6 and add Texas, but I'm not sure we need to cooperate on Texas Tech at that point. Maybe Kansas or West Virginia becomes #18. Thoughts?
06-07-2018 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1550
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
While any change may be 5+ years from now, it still must be fairly open to possibilities while real options are relatively finite. Within two years there will be confident indicators emerging.
If the SEC is the first to initiate the next B12 extraction, one may expect the OU-oSu combo would be the most pragmatic choice. I am trying to think which SEC schools would resist. For example, does A&M and Mizzou want a pair from which they had sped away?
As to Texas, how will they deal with more of their traditional rivals scattering? I expect the PAC12 may try to offer the 4--team addition again. Offering 6 would be radical; but perhaps necessary to reach a deal.
OU may be the prime school that breaks it all open. They will also the school that will keep the B12 together if so decided.
I
06-07-2018 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1551
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-07-2018 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 01:40 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 08:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

You are a night owl's night owl. I tip my hat to you.

This does work very well, but I think adding that 9th game at 16 adds so many advantages with regard to frequency of play. You can also ensure that the pods can be used as rotating divisions and you'd never have to play a conference semi-final.

I know a 9th game guarantees an additional loss for some, but if we get paid adequately for it then I think all the positives outweigh the negatives.

Yes, new job has me rotating between day and night shifts so expect some 4 am posts lol.

9th game will only make sense if the SEC office sees it as an improvement to the conference or as a NCAA requirement. Four schools in the east have yearly instate rivalry games, not to mention they wouldn’t mind scheduling some other exciting opponents without making their schedule too difficult to compete for titles.

I like the arrangement. So we should be working to bring the pair of Oklahoma schools on board in 2023-4. So here's the big question. What happens at that point if Texas wants in? If they are Johnny come lately and try to screw up the Oklahoma pair I say we move to 3 divisions of 6 and add Texas, but I'm not sure we need to cooperate on Texas Tech at that point. Maybe Kansas or West Virginia becomes #18. Thoughts?

If we get Texas, then OK can play OK State OOC. If Big 12 candidates are the only options, Texas Tech may be an overall better option than OSU. If OSU is needed anyway then Tech may offer more than West VA/Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State/TCU anyway. Beard did wonders with Tech basketball last year. I still like Kansas' academics but Texas Tech is at least a Tier 1/Highest Research University.

If the ACC is open for poaching (and yes I know the way the SEC operates is that the schools apply, the SEC doesn't "invite" but that's just semantics), then none of the remaining Big 12 teams make it.

Or maybe a G5 like USF shows it's worth.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2018 11:45 PM by Soobahk40050.)
06-07-2018 11:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1552
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-07-2018 09:10 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  While any change may be 5+ years from now, it still must be fairly open to possibilities while real options are relatively finite. Within two years there will be confident indicators emerging.
If the SEC is the first to initiate the next B12 extraction, one may expect the OU-oSu combo would be the most pragmatic choice. I am trying to think which SEC schools would resist. For example, does A&M and Mizzou want a pair from which they had sped away?
As to Texas, how will they deal with more of their traditional rivals scattering? I expect the PAC12 may try to offer the 4--team addition again. Offering 6 would be radical; but perhaps necessary to reach a deal.
OU may be the prime school that breaks it all open. They will also the school that will keep the B12 together if so decided.
I

I don't think anyone will object to the Oklahoma pair. Their relationship with Missouri is historic in nature and without a high degree of animus. I could see A&M being antsy about having Oklahoma recruiting Texas while sporting the SEC logo. But even the Aggies know that Oklahoma would add tremendous value to the SEC while profiting all of us. A 3/4's informal vote by the presidents (and unrecorded voice vote) is all that is required for an official invitation to be extended. The formal vote ,by precedent, must be unanimous and will be recorded. So I doubt there is a school besides A&M that would raise any reservations over Oklahoma, let alone 4 who would vote against. And considering that Texas might otherwise be a pursuit if Oklahoma is not taken I would think the Aggies would vote in favor.

But that begs my first question from my previous post. What if Texas, upon the announcement that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State had been extended invitations, decided to seek membership as well? After all at that point we would hold Arkansas, A&M, and Oklahoma along with Missouri and OSU, and a very desirable nearby adversary in L.S.U..

I think A&M might well raise a stink about that possibility, at least publicly. Besides at 16 the SEC, in spite of Texas's value, might just choose to stay a relatively peaceful 16.

As to the PAC, I expect for them to make a run at Texas. Without the pair of Oklahoma schools I could see them offering Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas, with the 4th being a bit murkier. Iowa State is AAU but Kansas State or T.C.U. might be the preferred direction.

And I agree that should Oklahoma decide to stand by the Big 12 they'll be around for quite sometime. But, the money, the Southeastern recruiting grounds, and entry into Texas via A&M will be quite the lure for the Sooners. But perhaps the biggest lure to the SEC would be the overall sports fit. Softball, Gymnastics, Baseball, and Football line up with their priorities better than with any other conference. The Basketball is good enough for the men and even better for the women. Then the capper is the proximity for their minor sports. The SEC West is the next best thing to being in the Big 12. So if we offer both Oklahoma schools that offer is going to be very very tempting. We'll see.
06-07-2018 11:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1553
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-07-2018 11:43 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(06-07-2018 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2018 01:40 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 08:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-25-2018 03:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Ok. Board at work and came up with a decent pod setup for a 16 team SEC with OU and OSU

Pods
1. OU, OSU, Mizz, Ark
2. A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
3. Ala, Aub, Tenn, Vandy
4. UF, UGa, SC, UK

Permanent rivals:
Auburn-Georgia
Tennessee-Florida
Alabama-LSU
Arkansas-A&M

8 game SEC schedule: play everyone every three years

You are a night owl's night owl. I tip my hat to you.

This does work very well, but I think adding that 9th game at 16 adds so many advantages with regard to frequency of play. You can also ensure that the pods can be used as rotating divisions and you'd never have to play a conference semi-final.

I know a 9th game guarantees an additional loss for some, but if we get paid adequately for it then I think all the positives outweigh the negatives.

Yes, new job has me rotating between day and night shifts so expect some 4 am posts lol.

9th game will only make sense if the SEC office sees it as an improvement to the conference or as a NCAA requirement. Four schools in the east have yearly instate rivalry games, not to mention they wouldn’t mind scheduling some other exciting opponents without making their schedule too difficult to compete for titles.

I like the arrangement. So we should be working to bring the pair of Oklahoma schools on board in 2023-4. So here's the big question. What happens at that point if Texas wants in? If they are Johnny come lately and try to screw up the Oklahoma pair I say we move to 3 divisions of 6 and add Texas, but I'm not sure we need to cooperate on Texas Tech at that point. Maybe Kansas or West Virginia becomes #18. Thoughts?

If we get Texas, then OK can play OK State OOC. If Big 12 candidates are the only options, Texas Tech may be an overall better option than OSU. If OSU is needed anyway then Tech may offer more than West VA/Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State/TCU anyway. Beard did wonders with Tech basketball last year. I still like Kansas' academics but Texas Tech is at least a Tier 1/Highest Research University.

If the ACC is open for poaching (and yes I know the way the SEC operates is that the schools apply, the SEC doesn't "invite" but that's just semantics), then none of the remaining Big 12 teams make it.

Or maybe a G5 like USF shows it's worth.

The only way I see Texas coming with Oklahoma would be if OSU had another P5 offer. I'm not sure that would happen.

As for the ACC I guess we'll know how stable they are by 2022. When the ACCN starts to payout full payments (when the startup costs are recouped) then they will know more where they stand moving forward. If the money is close enough they'll be fine. If it's not then there are few schools which may start looking around.
06-08-2018 12:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1554
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
At this point, I am for whatever opens the contract before 2023.

I think ESPN is probably still a good partner for the long term, but I am leery about the contract situation. It doesn't feel agile enough to respond to a changing market.

Honestly, I don't care if it takes adding a couple of G5s to go to 16 and then worrying about the rest later...seriously.

We're already underpaid and I don't like the timing of the contracts.
06-08-2018 03:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1555
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 03:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this point, I am for whatever opens the contract before 2023.

I think ESPN is probably still a good partner for the long term, but I am leery about the contract situation. It doesn't feel agile enough to respond to a changing market.

Honestly, I don't care if it takes adding a couple of G5s to go to 16 and then worrying about the rest later...seriously.

We're already underpaid and I don't like the timing of the contracts.

As far as landing a top content school like Oklahoma, the contracts aren't going to hurt us. 3/4 to 4/5ths of our total revenue comes from other than TV contracts. When the Big 10 earns their first 50 million dollar paycheck (if that isn't an over estimate like this year's total turned out to be) the SEC will be making 46 and still 11 million per school ahead of them in average gross total revenue.

What's more is that our T1 contract, even by our adversaries, is estimated to get every SEC school a 7 to 10 million dollar boost. Sounds like too much doesn't it? Well the CBS contract was considered under valued 2 years into the contract and that was years ago. So considering our built in escalations from a back loaded contract plus the fact that the Sugar bowl money was absent from the past year's earnings it is not inconceivable that we will be out earning the Big 10 by 2025, and doing so by more than just a million or two.

And, right now ESPN is more flexible than an Amazon. They can stream, bundle, and deliver the product in a tier. Amazon can't even produce an event right now. By the time Amazon gets active in the next tier of contracts our T1 rights will be up for renewal. So the SEC isn't missing the boat. And AllTideUp, we are still the top product and it's not really even close for 2nd, so in a world that values content the SEC is still king and a streaming world will prize content all the more, which gives us an edge in pursuing a school like Oklahoma.

Any way you cut it, market model, streaming model, or just plain popularity within our own region the SEC is the most valuable college sports commodity. And while those on message boards are focusing on TV revenue, the A.D.'s and presidents are focused on Total Revenue and when your schools average 11 million more each than their nearest competitor then it's time to put all the worry to rest. Who carries our games isn't that relevant. That we are the highest valued college sports product is. Now if you want to consider ditching our conference commissioner if our TV contracts don't keep pace that's quite another matter.

But, we won't be adding a couple of G5's just to renegotiate a contract. What's more is that our T1 contract will be renewed 1 year after the Big 10's next contract is signed. If we don't take advantage of that then a new commissioner might well be in order.
06-08-2018 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #1556
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-07-2018 09:10 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  While any change may be 5+ years from now, it still must be fairly open to possibilities while real options are relatively finite. Within two years there will be confident indicators emerging.
If the SEC is the first to initiate the next B12 extraction, one may expect the OU-oSu combo would be the most pragmatic choice. I am trying to think which SEC schools would resist. For example, does A&M and Mizzou want a pair from which they had sped away?
As to Texas, how will they deal with more of their traditional rivals scattering? I expect the PAC12 may try to offer the 4--team addition again. Offering 6 would be radical; but perhaps necessary to reach a deal.
OU may be the prime school that breaks it all open. They will also the school that will keep the B12 together if so decided.
I

I see Oklahoma as the key player in all of this. They will be the ones that basically decide if/when the Big 12 breaks up.
06-08-2018 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1557
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this point, I am for whatever opens the contract before 2023.

I think ESPN is probably still a good partner for the long term, but I am leery about the contract situation. It doesn't feel agile enough to respond to a changing market.

Honestly, I don't care if it takes adding a couple of G5s to go to 16 and then worrying about the rest later...seriously.

We're already underpaid and I don't like the timing of the contracts.

As far as landing a top content school like Oklahoma, the contracts aren't going to hurt us. 3/4 to 4/5ths of our total revenue comes from other than TV contracts. When the Big 10 earns their first 50 million dollar paycheck (if that isn't an over estimate like this year's total turned out to be) the SEC will be making 46 and still 11 million per school ahead of them in average gross total revenue.

What's more is that our T1 contract, even by our adversaries, is estimated to get every SEC school a 7 to 10 million dollar boost. Sounds like too much doesn't it? Well the CBS contract was considered under valued 2 years into the contract and that was years ago. So considering our built in escalations from a back loaded contract plus the fact that the Sugar bowl money was absent from the past year's earnings it is not inconceivable that we will be out earning the Big 10 by 2025, and doing so by more than just a million or two.

And, right now ESPN is more flexible than an Amazon. They can stream, bundle, and deliver the product in a tier. Amazon can't even produce an event right now. By the time Amazon gets active in the next tier of contracts our T1 rights will be up for renewal. So the SEC isn't missing the boat. And AllTideUp, we are still the top product and it's not really even close for 2nd, so in a world that values content the SEC is still king and a streaming world will prize content all the more, which gives us an edge in pursuing a school like Oklahoma.

Any way you cut it, market model, streaming model, or just plain popularity within our own region the SEC is the most valuable college sports commodity. And while those on message boards are focusing on TV revenue, the A.D.'s and presidents are focused on Total Revenue and when your schools average 11 million more each than their nearest competitor then it's time to put all the worry to rest. Who carries our games isn't that relevant. That we are the highest valued college sports product is. Now if you want to consider ditching our conference commissioner if our TV contracts don't keep pace that's quite another matter.

But, we won't be adding a couple of G5's just to renegotiate a contract. What's more is that our T1 contract will be renewed 1 year after the Big 10's next contract is signed. If we don't take advantage of that then a new commissioner might well be in order.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't like having most of our rights locked up until 2034 or whenever it is.

With that said, I'm all for offering Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair when the time comes. Despite the small market size, both of those brand would bring a strong number of people wanting to buy subs and that's especially true of OU. The pair also fits fairly well into any cable model that might be employed.

In the end, I do believe that quality content matters most, but I also believe there's another side to the coin. There's an awful lot of lesser quality programs out there that still have large numbers of fans who are rabid enough to watch all their games. While the casual fan primarily looks for quality, there are some who simply want to watch their favorite teams regardless of the platform.
06-08-2018 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1558
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 12:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 08:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:06 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this point, I am for whatever opens the contract before 2023.

I think ESPN is probably still a good partner for the long term, but I am leery about the contract situation. It doesn't feel agile enough to respond to a changing market.

Honestly, I don't care if it takes adding a couple of G5s to go to 16 and then worrying about the rest later...seriously.

We're already underpaid and I don't like the timing of the contracts.

As far as landing a top content school like Oklahoma, the contracts aren't going to hurt us. 3/4 to 4/5ths of our total revenue comes from other than TV contracts. When the Big 10 earns their first 50 million dollar paycheck (if that isn't an over estimate like this year's total turned out to be) the SEC will be making 46 and still 11 million per school ahead of them in average gross total revenue.

What's more is that our T1 contract, even by our adversaries, is estimated to get every SEC school a 7 to 10 million dollar boost. Sounds like too much doesn't it? Well the CBS contract was considered under valued 2 years into the contract and that was years ago. So considering our built in escalations from a back loaded contract plus the fact that the Sugar bowl money was absent from the past year's earnings it is not inconceivable that we will be out earning the Big 10 by 2025, and doing so by more than just a million or two.

And, right now ESPN is more flexible than an Amazon. They can stream, bundle, and deliver the product in a tier. Amazon can't even produce an event right now. By the time Amazon gets active in the next tier of contracts our T1 rights will be up for renewal. So the SEC isn't missing the boat. And AllTideUp, we are still the top product and it's not really even close for 2nd, so in a world that values content the SEC is still king and a streaming world will prize content all the more, which gives us an edge in pursuing a school like Oklahoma.

Any way you cut it, market model, streaming model, or just plain popularity within our own region the SEC is the most valuable college sports commodity. And while those on message boards are focusing on TV revenue, the A.D.'s and presidents are focused on Total Revenue and when your schools average 11 million more each than their nearest competitor then it's time to put all the worry to rest. Who carries our games isn't that relevant. That we are the highest valued college sports product is. Now if you want to consider ditching our conference commissioner if our TV contracts don't keep pace that's quite another matter.

But, we won't be adding a couple of G5's just to renegotiate a contract. What's more is that our T1 contract will be renewed 1 year after the Big 10's next contract is signed. If we don't take advantage of that then a new commissioner might well be in order.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't like having most of our rights locked up until 2034 or whenever it is.

With that said, I'm all for offering Oklahoma and Oklahoma State as a pair when the time comes. Despite the small market size, both of those brand would bring a strong number of people wanting to buy subs and that's especially true of OU. The pair also fits fairly well into any cable model that might be employed.

In the end, I do believe that quality content matters most, but I also believe there's another side to the coin. There's an awful lot of lesser quality programs out there that still have large numbers of fans who are rabid enough to watch all their games. While the casual fan primarily looks for quality, there are some who simply want to watch their favorite teams regardless of the platform.

I agree. That's why after we have secured one of the two top brands left on the market I would not be adverse to adding a North Carolina and Virginia school. And, if they shake loose there's even more content value in Florida State and Clemson, plus then we earn a full share of that rivalry money every year instead of splitting the years with the ACC.
06-08-2018 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1559
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.
06-08-2018 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1560
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2018 03:02 PM by JRsec.)
06-08-2018 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.