Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Sorry, but I have ask
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
mac6115cd Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,439
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Bearcats
Location: Waynesville, Ohio
Post: #1
Sorry, but I have ask
Why is Texas moving to the SEC?

1. They don't need the money (from ~$40M to ~45M)
2. They'll never win the SEC championship
3. They're going from a big fish in a small pond to an average fish in the ocean
4. They don't need the TV exposure
5. They are the most profitable college football program

So, why? Because they want to get curb stomped by Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, etc. every year?

I would not be surprised if they decide to back out. At least, Oklahoma stands a chance.
09-04-2021 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-04-2021 11:40 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Why is Texas moving to the SEC?

1. They don't need the money (from ~$40M to ~45M)
2. They'll never win the SEC championship
3. They're going from a big fish in a small pond to an average fish in the ocean
4. They don't need the TV exposure
5. They are the most profitable college football program

So, why? Because they want to get curb stomped by Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, etc. every year?

I would not be surprised if they decide to back out. At least, Oklahoma stands a chance.
1. Do your homework. Texas made 52 million with the LHN. In the SEC under it's new contract they will earn 76.5 million in 2024-5 when they join.

2. They haven't been winning the B12. Part of that has been the preference of Texas athletes opting to play for A&M, Alabama, and LSU where SEC players are taken in record number annually by the NFL.

3. This will depend upon their real problem, coaching.

4. Yes everyone needs more TV exposure. Within 10 years many schools will be closed and only top schools competing for a huge dip in prospective students due to low middle class birth rates and with the death of Boomers and a ballooning national debt will be suffering massive declines in donations (which has already started and will only get worse).

Giants in any industry don't make massive identity changes unless what they see on the horizon of the future scares the hell out of them. This isn't a move for just more sports revenue it is a move for security in times which will be most uncertain. Geography is the other crucial variable. It changes their away travel the least of any of their potential moves.

5. Last year Ohio State out earned them. This move puts them back on top.
09-04-2021 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mac6115cd Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,439
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Bearcats
Location: Waynesville, Ohio
Post: #3
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-04-2021 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-04-2021 11:40 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Why is Texas moving to the SEC?

1. They don't need the money (from ~$40M to ~45M)
2. They'll never win the SEC championship
3. They're going from a big fish in a small pond to an average fish in the ocean
4. They don't need the TV exposure
5. They are the most profitable college football program

So, why? Because they want to get curb stomped by Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, etc. every year?

I would not be surprised if they decide to back out. At least, Oklahoma stands a chance.
1. Do your homework. Texas made 52 million with the LHN. In the SEC under it's new contract they will earn 76.5 million in 2024-5 when they join.

2. They haven't been winning the B12. Part of that has been the preference of Texas athletes opting to play for A&M, Alabama, and LSU where SEC players are taken in record number annually by the NFL.

3. This will depend upon their real problem, coaching.

4. Yes everyone needs more TV exposure. Within 10 years many schools will be closed and only top schools competing for a huge dip in prospective students due to low middle class birth rates and with the death of Boomers and a ballooning national debt will be suffering massive declines in donations (which has already started and will only get worse).

Giants in any industry don't make massive identity changes unless what they see on the horizon of the future scares the hell out of them. This isn't a move for just more sports revenue it is a move for security in times which will be most uncertain. Geography is the other crucial variable. It changes their away travel the least of any of their potential moves.

5. Last year Ohio State out earned them. This move puts them back on top.

Good points. My point on the money is that they may not need it, they want it. I DO see better recruiting as a result and this may be the major reason for the move.
09-04-2021 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-04-2021 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-04-2021 11:40 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Why is Texas moving to the SEC?

1. They don't need the money (from ~$40M to ~45M)
2. They'll never win the SEC championship
3. They're going from a big fish in a small pond to an average fish in the ocean
4. They don't need the TV exposure
5. They are the most profitable college football program

So, why? Because they want to get curb stomped by Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, etc. every year?

I would not be surprised if they decide to back out. At least, Oklahoma stands a chance.
1. Do your homework. Texas made 52 million with the LHN. In the SEC under it's new contract they will earn 76.5 million in 2024-5 when they join.

2. They haven't been winning the B12. Part of that has been the preference of Texas athletes opting to play for A&M, Alabama, and LSU where SEC players are taken in record number annually by the NFL.

3. This will depend upon their real problem, coaching.

4. Yes everyone needs more TV exposure. Within 10 years many schools will be closed and only top schools competing for a huge dip in prospective students due to low middle class birth rates and with the death of Boomers and a ballooning national debt will be suffering massive declines in donations (which has already started and will only get worse).

Giants in any industry don't make massive identity changes unless what they see on the horizon of the future scares the hell out of them. This isn't a move for just more sports revenue it is a move for security in times which will be most uncertain. Geography is the other crucial variable. It changes their away travel the least of any of their potential moves.

5. Last year Ohio State out earned them. This move puts them back on top.

It is not the tv revenue. UT & OU could have made similar amounts in the B12. The new deal would have increased and whatever amount OU & UT were short the B12 would have made up in unequal revenue sharing.

I think it all came down to the effects of NIL & recruiting. Part of it might have been seeing a few bigger names come to OU & UT to play but even that could have been minimized by going to 8 conference games.
09-15-2021 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #5
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-15-2021 12:13 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(09-04-2021 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-04-2021 11:40 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Why is Texas moving to the SEC?

1. They don't need the money (from ~$40M to ~45M)
2. They'll never win the SEC championship
3. They're going from a big fish in a small pond to an average fish in the ocean
4. They don't need the TV exposure
5. They are the most profitable college football program

So, why? Because they want to get curb stomped by Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, etc. every year?

I would not be surprised if they decide to back out. At least, Oklahoma stands a chance.
1. Do your homework. Texas made 52 million with the LHN. In the SEC under it's new contract they will earn 76.5 million in 2024-5 when they join.

2. They haven't been winning the B12. Part of that has been the preference of Texas athletes opting to play for A&M, Alabama, and LSU where SEC players are taken in record number annually by the NFL.

3. This will depend upon their real problem, coaching.

4. Yes everyone needs more TV exposure. Within 10 years many schools will be closed and only top schools competing for a huge dip in prospective students due to low middle class birth rates and with the death of Boomers and a ballooning national debt will be suffering massive declines in donations (which has already started and will only get worse).

Giants in any industry don't make massive identity changes unless what they see on the horizon of the future scares the hell out of them. This isn't a move for just more sports revenue it is a move for security in times which will be most uncertain. Geography is the other crucial variable. It changes their away travel the least of any of their potential moves.

5. Last year Ohio State out earned them. This move puts them back on top.

It is not the tv revenue. UT & OU could have made similar amounts in the B12. The new deal would have increased and whatever amount OU & UT were short the B12 would have made up in unequal revenue sharing.

I think it all came down to the effects of NIL & recruiting. Part of it might have been seeing a few bigger names come to OU & UT to play but even that could have been minimized by going to 8 conference games.

Probably for financial security. With the morons that are in charge of this country, I would not be surprised to see us in a major recession soon, apparently others are thinking along those lines as well. Seems like the left is "more worried about COVID-19" than literally anything else. (See failure to investigate General Mark Milley for treason , the failure to retreat from Afghanistan properly instead of having Vietnam 2 0, the possible failure of not screening for terrorists during the evacuation, the failure to resolve the crisis at the border with Mexico, and the failure to recall Gavin Newsome).

At this point, I would be fine having Biden sign a statement saying that he will never run for political office again and leave the White House immediately,!! Same thing goes for Kamala Harris!!!
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2021 06:05 PM by DawgNBama.)
09-15-2021 05:23 PM
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: #6
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2021 08:59 AM by Gamecock.)
09-16-2021 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.
09-16-2021 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-15-2021 12:13 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(09-04-2021 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-04-2021 11:40 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  Why is Texas moving to the SEC?

1. They don't need the money (from ~$40M to ~45M)
2. They'll never win the SEC championship
3. They're going from a big fish in a small pond to an average fish in the ocean
4. They don't need the TV exposure
5. They are the most profitable college football program

So, why? Because they want to get curb stomped by Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, etc. every year?

I would not be surprised if they decide to back out. At least, Oklahoma stands a chance.
1. Do your homework. Texas made 52 million with the LHN. In the SEC under it's new contract they will earn 76.5 million in 2024-5 when they join.

2. They haven't been winning the B12. Part of that has been the preference of Texas athletes opting to play for A&M, Alabama, and LSU where SEC players are taken in record number annually by the NFL.

3. This will depend upon their real problem, coaching.

4. Yes everyone needs more TV exposure. Within 10 years many schools will be closed and only top schools competing for a huge dip in prospective students due to low middle class birth rates and with the death of Boomers and a ballooning national debt will be suffering massive declines in donations (which has already started and will only get worse).

Giants in any industry don't make massive identity changes unless what they see on the horizon of the future scares the hell out of them. This isn't a move for just more sports revenue it is a move for security in times which will be most uncertain. Geography is the other crucial variable. It changes their away travel the least of any of their potential moves.

5. Last year Ohio State out earned them. This move puts them back on top.

It is not the tv revenue. UT & OU could have made similar amounts in the B12. The new deal would have increased and whatever amount OU & UT were short the B12 would have made up in unequal revenue sharing.

I think it all came down to the effects of NIL & recruiting. Part of it might have been seeing a few bigger names come to OU & UT to play but even that could have been minimized by going to 8 conference games.

To be fair, Texas, OU and the entire Big 12 have constantly been evaluating realignment for decades. With the landscape able to shift dramatically in the upcoming years, I’m sure OU and Texas yhat it was time to join the Jones’ instead of figure how to keep up.
09-17-2021 11:46 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: #9
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2021 03:10 PM by Gamecock.)
09-17-2021 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.

You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.

Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.

Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.

Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.

Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.

This is less about football for Texas and more about elevating themselves above Baylor, TCU, and Tech in a visible way. For OU it's about revenue and greater sports recognition and distinguishing themselves from OSU.

My point in all or this is that when you see giants move major, possibly life altering, change is coming. And it will impact all of us.

So "unnecessary" couldn't be further from reality. If it was about sports I'd agree with you. And Texas wouldn't be moving.

Think of it this way. If you are at the beach and suddenly all of the animals start running inland hell is coming from the sea, tidal wave. When you see top brands moving it's essential to be on alert as they never move unless it's a matter of survival.
09-17-2021 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #11
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-17-2021 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.

You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.

Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.

Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.

Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.

Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.

This is less about football for Texas and more about elevating themselves above Baylor, TCU, and Tech in a visible way. For OU it's about revenue and greater sports recognition and distinguishing themselves from OSU.

My point in all or this is that when you see giants move major, possibly life altering, change is coming. And it will impact all of us.

So "unnecessary" couldn't be further from reality. If it was about sports I'd agree with you. And Texas wouldn't be moving.

Think of it this way. If you are at the beach and suddenly all of the animals start running inland hell is coming from the sea, tidal wave. When you see top brands moving it's essential to be on alert as they never move unless it's a matter of survival.
When you are talking about branding, are you talking about kind of like how the Ivy League separated themselves out to form the Ivy League a long time ago???? Like how we all know that Yale, Princeton, Penn, and Harvard and supposed to be really good schools academically??? And why the Ivy League hasn't really expanded much since adding Cornell?? Is Texas our "Cornell"?

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2021 06:12 PM by DawgNBama.)
09-19-2021 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #12
Sorry, but I have ask
(09-17-2021 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.

You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.

Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.

Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.

Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.

Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.

This is less about football for Texas and more about elevating themselves above Baylor, TCU, and Tech in a visible way. For OU it's about revenue and greater sports recognition and distinguishing themselves from OSU.

My point in all or this is that when you see giants move major, possibly life altering, change is coming. And it will impact all of us.

So "unnecessary" couldn't be further from reality. If it was about sports I'd agree with you. And Texas wouldn't be moving.

Think of it this way. If you are at the beach and suddenly all of the animals start running inland hell is coming from the sea, tidal wave. When you see top brands moving it's essential to be on alert as they never move unless it's a matter of survival.



(09-17-2021 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.

You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.

Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.

Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.

Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.

Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.

I assume you are referring to current U.S. legal citizens, and not future, legal immigrants (and I am not talking about rubber-stamping current illegal immigrants as legal immigrants either, although our current presidential administration seems to want to do just that so that it aids in their political objectives.), because I have begun to notice that more Latinos/Latinas have started wearing more SEC apparel where I work. The vast majority don't, but, as they say, "The times they are a-changin'!!!" If both the big state schools and the small state schools start recruiting more legal immigrants, the dropoff won't be nearly as bad as you say JR, but that's my opinion. The other thing to keep in mind is a possible big recession though.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2021 07:53 PM by DawgNBama.)
09-21-2021 04:45 PM
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: #13
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-21-2021 04:45 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I assume you are referring to current U.S. legal citizens, and not future, legal immigrants (and I am not talking about rubber-stamping current illegal immigrants as legal immigrants either, although our current presidential administration seems to want to do just that so that it aids in their political objectives.), because I have begun to notice that more Latinos/Latinas have started wearing more SEC apparel where I work. The vast majority don't, but, as they say, "The times they are a-changin'!!!" If both the big state schools and the small state schools start recruiting more legal immigrants, the dropoff won't be nearly as bad as you say JR, but that's my opinion. The other thing to keep in mind is a possible big recession though.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Honestly, I think attendance and fan support will always be fine just because of raw numbers. While the average fan/alumni will be less engaged than their predecessors from a generation ago, if schools are spitting out 5-10k graduates a year and states are experiencing massive growth then things will even out. JR makes a good point about Baby Boomers not buying tickets any longer and eventually dying, but if you're drawing from a much bigger pool then it will still be very easy to hit those targets. Just as an example, when my parents started at South Carolina in the mid 70s, the enrollment was 15k undergrad and 6k grad students for a total of about 21k. By the time I got to Columbia in 2009 the total headcount was north of 40k and as of Fall 2020 it is over 52k (with 5k of those being online). I expect the trends to continue.

It may look different, but in the future I predict that Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Ohio State, etc will still be putting 70-80k (or more) butts in seats and get plenty of good TV ratings.
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2021 09:17 AM by Gamecock.)
09-23-2021 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Porcine Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,635
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation: 229
I Root For: Arkansas, SBC
Location: Northern Arkansas
Post: #14
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(09-17-2021 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.

You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.

Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.

Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.

Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.

Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.

I assume you are referring to current U.S. legal citizens, and not future, legal immigrants (and I am not talking about rubber-stamping current illegal immigrants as legal immigrants either, although our current presidential administration seems to want to do just that so that it aids in their political objectives.), because I have begun to notice that more Latinos/Latinas have started wearing more SEC apparel where I work. The vast majority don't, but, as they say, "The times they are a-changin'!!!" If both the big state schools and the small state schools start recruiting more legal immigrants, the dropoff won't be nearly as bad as you say JR, but that's my opinion. The other thing to keep in mind is a possible big recession though.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
[/quote]

Maybe the SEC should start carrying Men's soccer.
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2021 02:17 PM by Porcine.)
11-07-2021 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Sorry, but I have ask
(11-07-2021 02:16 PM)Porcine Wrote:  
(09-17-2021 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-17-2021 03:08 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-16-2021 08:56 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I sort of agree OP, I don't really see the positives either. They have plenty of money and the Big 12 was a much easier path to the playoffs. But perhaps that is now moot with the proposed expanded models.

The positives for Texas are enumerated in the "What if Texas..." thread. The positives for Oklahoma are similar.

The positives for the SEC are mostly economic and partially academic.

The question should be "Why is it necessary?" The whole nature of college sports realignment should be a big red flag to the public. It signals an economic seed change in the nation away from the middle class and toward corporatization of almost everything including government. And as our schools see those changes on the horizon fear is driving these moves, not greed. And when even a Texas, the wealthiest of college programs, gives up control of its own conference to move anywhere else, it is about positioning itself to ride out that change that's coming.

Agree on that last point.

It's sort of like the equivalent of leaving your small town, low stress law firm where you make 200k/year to move to a big city and do corporate law for 300k. Sure you're making more and have more prestige, but at what cost? It just seems so unnecessary.

You miss the main issue. Texas saw it as necessary. They needed to separate their brand from the other Texas programs which they elevated by association because competition for students will be fierce within 10 years. We have a sagging birth rate coupled with a cost of higher education which is not a solid ROI for most not interested in STEM fields and even some of those are losing viability to increased automation. Add the death of Boomers as the last vested generation in the nation and it becomes clear that private donations, outside of CEO's, are likely to take a major hit. Then you have strapped State budgets and a Federal Government 32 soon to be 36 Trillion in debt which impacts likely grants.

Schools are positioning themselves to radically expand undergraduate in an effort to use increased tuition revenue (with possibly lowering tuition to enhance volume) to fund research.

Look around at all of the construction at old state flagship schools. They are building at seemingly the wrong time (baby decline of the middle class the last 20 years), but in actuality it is preparation for a massive downsizing coming in higher ed.

Some smaller state schools will be retasked to teaching, to vo tech, or closed. Large State schools will likely become the umbrella as administration.

Texas and Oklahoma are gaining separation not for athletics sake, but for branding which attracts they eyeballs of young applicants who want a full college experience.

I assume you are referring to current U.S. legal citizens, and not future, legal immigrants (and I am not talking about rubber-stamping current illegal immigrants as legal immigrants either, although our current presidential administration seems to want to do just that so that it aids in their political objectives.), because I have begun to notice that more Latinos/Latinas have started wearing more SEC apparel where I work. The vast majority don't, but, as they say, "The times they are a-changin'!!!" If both the big state schools and the small state schools start recruiting more legal immigrants, the dropoff won't be nearly as bad as you say JR, but that's my opinion. The other thing to keep in mind is a possible big recession though.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

1. The history of legal immigration into the U.S. shows that is the third generation of immigrant families that are usually the first to attend college. Asians do it in the second because they are massively frugal and pool resources to educate their children (think Chinese, indian, Japanese, and Korean).

2. I personally believe a massive recession / depression looms to hit within the next decade. China is backing there Renminbi with 10% gold in an effort to wrest World Reserve Currency status away from the United States. They have used our corporations as dupes to build their infrastructure and manufacturing base, have accessed them for patent theft, have placed their spies posing as grad students in our universities, and plan to use their influence through multi-national PACs to encourage more non productive red ink projects. They want high debt to erode confidence in the Dollar and Euro so they can dictate trade in Renminbi. So it's not if their is a financial collapse, but when.

China is encouraging fools in the west into crypto currencies while the are the leading purchaser of Gold, Silver, especially Copper, and Platinum which is down due to Palladiums use in catalytic converters. Copper screening is what they put into the walls and ceiling of all key government, military and medical buildings to stop emp weapons. Platinum is the skin for all satellites and gold its circuitry. Silver is antimicrobial.

So yeah, its coming. And the downsizing of unneeded bureaucracy is a must at every level if we are to survive this current idiocy.

As to men's soccer, it will be served like fine wine, when it is time.
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2021 03:32 PM by JRsec.)
11-07-2021 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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.