(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's where things stand for the SEC:
School Nat# / Attendance / Total Gross Revenue
3. Alabama / 101,534 / $143,776,550
6. Florida / 85,834 / $130,011,244
8. Louisiana St / 104,909 / $117,457,398
10. Tennessee / 95,584 / $111,579,779
13. Auburn / 87,451 / $103,680,609
14. Arkansas / 66,521 / $ 99,770,840
16. Georgia / 92,746 / $ 98,120,889
19. Kentucky / 57,572 / $ 95,720,724
21. Texas A&M / 105,123 / $ 93,957,906
25. South Car. / 82,401 / $ 90,484,422
35. Missouri / 65,285 / $ 76,306,889
36. Mississippi / 61,547 / $ 73,390,050
49. Miss State / 61,127 / $ 57,362,224

Stats provided by USA Today on Revenues and the Rankings Nationally among other Public Universities.

Most Profitable Football Conferences / figures given in millions / 2000-2013
1. SEC: $4,078.81
2. B1G: $2,870.89
3. XII: $1,574.40
4. P12: $1,311.98
5. ACC: $1,008.39

Data provided by Nerd Wallet

Based on the Public Schools Revenue data for 2014 the mean for the Big 10 was: $99,908,815. That was tops. The SEC's mean was $99,355,348 for second. The Big 12 was third in mean. The PAC and ACC are really close. The top half of the PAC earns more but the bottom half of the ACC earns more than the PAC.

The Mean attendance for the SEC in 2014-5 was the nations best: 78,706 up roughly 3,206 from last year. The second best attendance average belonged to the Big 10 which dropped significantly due to Rutgers and Maryland to 65,430.



**********************************************************************

If the SEC wants to expand and wants to find schools that enhance their existing numbers (or at least don't hurt them) then here are our targets:

1. Texas / 93,332 / $165,691,486
7. Oklahoma / 89,343 / $123,805,661

Income hurts the average, but isn't bad / Attendance would drag us down / but they do add an in with DFW and a new state:

22. Okla. St. / 54,032 / $ 93,664,337

Markets would help our bottom line:

28. Virginia / 36,906 / $ 84,402,710
30. U.N.C. / 54,500 / $ 82,792,342
40. Va Tech / 61,983 / $ 70,030,484
43. N.C. St. / 55,414 / $ 67,481,639

Content would add some value:

24. Fl. St. / 81,805 / $ 91,382,441

Might add some market value under the right conditions:

33. W.V.U. / 59,161 / $ 77,706,698


So if you ask me about different realignment scenarios for the SEC options are relatively limited for schools that add to the bottom line in revenue and attendance.

Texas and Oklahoma would do that for us.

Oklahoma State would detract from the mean revenue of the Publics, and would detract from the mean attendance numbers, but would add markets.

North Carolina or N.C. State add to the market value of the conference but either would detract from the conference revenue mean (well as they stand now but that would go up once in the conference) and from the attendance mean.

Virginia or Virginia Tech would add to the market value but would also detract from the conference means. Virginia Tech less so in attendance and Virginia less so in revenue production.

West Virginia could hold some market value if needed as a substitute for #16.

Florida State would add value but more minimally than some of the others as a content addition. They are above the mean on attendance (78,706) but below the mean in revenue. ($99,355,348 for the publics. Vandy's 2014 numbers aren't available that I can find for revenue but I did find their 2014-5 attendance).

Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston? TCU have the better football, but Texas wants to be top dog in the conference and want to keep the Longhorn Network is killing any raids on the Big 12 to have it be picked apart. Texas is like Notre Dame right now. They both are playing hard ball.

There are 2 schools who are from what I am seeing are in positive in making money. BYU and Boise State. MWC allowing Boise State to allow them to have rights to sell their home games to ESPN helped them out.

Now, the one ACC school that seems to be a negative as an add right now is Miami, Florida. There is no value to add them to any conference right now and UCF is more valuable then them. The reason is their continued scandals and the lack of support from fans, students and alumni because of the scandals. North Carolina also have a baggage of the academics scandal. Notre Dame as will. When you have scandals, there tend to be not much support until they go number of years without it. Miami have been in trouble with the NCAA for a long time, and many schools and conferences are not too happy with the NCAA and Miami because Miami seems to get off so easy and schools like USC, SMU and Penn. State crying foul.

Oklahoma yes, but with Oklahoma you don't need access to DFW through T.C.U.. IMO taking Oklahoma excludes T.C.U.. If Texas was going elsewhere and ESPN wasn't leaning on the SEC to take Kansas, then West Virginia or possibly Baylor could come into play. A&M gives us much of the Houston market and quite oddly there is a large contingent of Auburn fans in Houston due to NASA. Oklahoma is strong in DFW so if you wanted an ambient general presence in the rest of East Texas going with Baylor wouldn't be a bad choice. But then West Virginia gives you a whole new market with access into part of the beltway. So if we were just expanding out of the Big 12 and Texas was not one of those involved the Oklahoma and one of the other two would probably do us the most good. But, Kansas, odd fit that it is does bring AAU status, basketball, and a state of 3 million. But remember this, Baylor, as a Baptist school, would be a second school to pull for for a pot load of Texans and SEC fans and that shouldn't be undersold.

(04-22-2015 02:47 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:42 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  So many different possible combinations. Here's one that would balance things out competitively and geographically, although it suffers from the probably-unrealistic assumptions that Texas would go west and Notre Dame would give up independence:

- The Big 10 adds Missouri and Kansas
- The SEC replaces Missouri with Oklahoma, and adds NC State and Virginia Tech
- The ACC replaces NC State and Virginia Tech with UConn and WVU, adds Cincinnati, and lands Notre Dame as a full member
- The Pac 12 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State

Now in lieu of the P5, we have a P4 with each conference at 16 members with logical 8/8 division splits.*

The Big 12 leftovers are TCU, Baylor, and Iowa State. They hook up with the MWC 12, the remaining AAC 10, and BYU, UTEP and Marshall to form a national "best of the rest" 28-team AAC divided into four divisions.**

The CFP expands to 8, with auto-bids going to the P4 champions and to the winner of a playoff between the two highest-ranked AAC division winners, leaving 3 at-large berths.

*P4 conference divisions:
Big 10 West - Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois
Big 10 East - Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers
SEC West - Oklahoma, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
SEC East - Florida, Georgia, Clemson, NC State, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
ACC North - Boston College, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Louisville
ACC South - Virginia, Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami
Pac 16 West - Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA
Pac 16 East - Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas

**AAC XII divisions:
Pacific - Boise State, Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU, UNLV, Nevada, Hawaii (FB only)
Mountain - BYU, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, UTEP
Central - TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Iowa State, Memphis
Eastern - USF, UCF, Tulane, ECU, Marshall, Temple, Navy (FB only)

I don’t mean to derail JRsec's very interesting thread, but the above post needs to be addressed:

If the “Big 12 leftovers are TCU, Baylor, and Iowa State,” they will not “hook up with the MWC 12 [and] the remaining AAC 10;” they would raid both conferences. How do I know this? UCONN, CINCI, and USF raided and almost dismantled CUSA while being unstable, unnamed, and under paid. If TCU, Baylor, and Iowa State are able to retain the “Big XII” name, they could easily raid other G5 conferences….

I'd go even further: Even if they aren't able to retain the Big 12 name, those three would still be a stronger center of gravity than anyone in the MWC and would attract MWC and AAC schools to them, not vice-versa.

You guys must be talking about 10 years from now because there is no way that four schools are left behind. I guess you folks just don't understand the voting issues to dissolve the conference. That alone keeps your little "four left out scenario" from EVER happening before the GoR runs out. If they try to leave out two, because of the eight vote scenario, then those two are going to rake the other eight over the coals and it is quite possible that FOX jumps in with them on that litigation.

This isn't picking teams for kickball people.

(04-19-2015 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's where things stand for the SEC:
School Nat# / Attendance / Total Gross Revenue
3. Alabama / 101,534 / $143,776,550
6. Florida / 85,834 / $130,011,244
8. Louisiana St / 104,909 / $117,457,398
10. Tennessee / 95,584 / $111,579,779
13. Auburn / 87,451 / $103,680,609
14. Arkansas / 66,521 / $ 99,770,840
16. Georgia / 92,746 / $ 98,120,889
19. Kentucky / 57,572 / $ 95,720,724
21. Texas A&M / 105,123 / $ 93,957,906
25. South Car. / 82,401 / $ 90,484,422
35. Missouri / 65,285 / $ 76,306,889
36. Mississippi / 61,547 / $ 73,390,050
49. Miss State / 61,127 / $ 57,362,224

Stats provided by USA Today on Revenues and the Rankings Nationally among other Public Universities.

Most Profitable Football Conferences / figures given in millions / 2000-2013
1. SEC: $4,078.81
2. B1G: $2,870.89
3. XII: $1,574.40
4. P12: $1,311.98
5. ACC: $1,008.39

Data provided by Nerd Wallet

Based on the Public Schools Revenue data for 2014 the mean for the Big 10 was: $99,908,815. That was tops. The SEC's mean was $99,355,348 for second. The Big 12 was third in mean. The PAC and ACC are really close. The top half of the PAC earns more but the bottom half of the ACC earns more than the PAC.

The Mean attendance for the SEC in 2014-5 was the nations best: 78,706 up roughly 3,206 from last year. The second best attendance average belonged to the Big 10 which dropped significantly due to Rutgers and Maryland to 65,430.



**********************************************************************

If the SEC wants to expand and wants to find schools that enhance their existing numbers (or at least don't hurt them) then here are our targets:

1. Texas / 93,332 / $165,691,486
7. Oklahoma / 89,343 / $123,805,661

Income hurts the average, but isn't bad / Attendance would drag us down / but they do add an in with DFW and a new state:

22. Okla. St. / 54,032 / $ 93,664,337

Markets would help our bottom line:

28. Virginia / 36,906 / $ 84,402,710
30. U.N.C. / 54,500 / $ 82,792,342
40. Va Tech / 61,983 / $ 70,030,484
43. N.C. St. / 55,414 / $ 67,481,639

Content would add some value:

24. Fl. St. / 81,805 / $ 91,382,441

Might add some market value under the right conditions:

33. W.V.U. / 59,161 / $ 77,706,698


So if you ask me about different realignment scenarios for the SEC options are relatively limited for schools that add to the bottom line in revenue and attendance.

Texas and Oklahoma would do that for us.

Oklahoma State would detract from the mean revenue of the Publics, and would detract from the mean attendance numbers, but would add markets.

North Carolina or N.C. State add to the market value of the conference but either would detract from the conference revenue mean (well as they stand now but that would go up once in the conference) and from the attendance mean.

Virginia or Virginia Tech would add to the market value but would also detract from the conference means. Virginia Tech less so in attendance and Virginia less so in revenue production.

West Virginia could hold some market value if needed as a substitute for #16.

Florida State would add value but more minimally than some of the others as a content addition. They are above the mean on attendance (78,706) but below the mean in revenue. ($99,355,348 for the publics. Vandy's 2014 numbers aren't available that I can find for revenue but I did find their 2014-5 attendance).

http://www.sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...n-14-years

http://www.thesportseconomist.com/2015/0...n-ratings/

I've added some links for your enjoyment and discussion. These links provide the same information for the other P5 conferences.

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Scott from PAC 12 said the backup plan for number 13 and 14 are Boise State and San Diego State. It was a hint from the PAC 12 that they are done trying to work to get the Tex-Homa schools. Academics seems to be in the back burner now, and looking at the tv draw of schools. If the next 4 schools that the PAC 12 will go to would be Boise State (football product), San Diego State, Hawaii and Colorado State. Scott did say Boise State have improved on their academics and growing fast that way. I think Idaho state educators are moving Boise State in the direction as a research institution than with Idaho. Boise State can draw students to the state and all that than Idaho. Plus with their last bowl appearance? The ratings was very high.

Please provide a link that backs that up?

(04-22-2015 06:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You guys must be talking about 10 years from now because there is no way that four schools are left behind. I guess you folks just don't understand the voting issues to dissolve the conference. That alone keeps your little "four left out scenario" from EVER happening before the GoR runs out. If they try to leave out two, because of the eight vote scenario, then those two are going to rake the other eight over the coals and it is quite possible that FOX jumps in with them on that litigation.

This isn't picking teams for kickball people.

You are correct. The Big 12 has 6 valuable Universities---- Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, West Virginia and a Kansas school.

TV will make this happen and the left behind 4 will be forgotten.

Such is life in the make believe realignment world.

Here are the TV ratings for conferences this past year 2014-5 Season:

Based on Available Data
SEC: 4.52M
B1G: 2.69M
ACC: 2.64M
XII: 2.23M
PAC: 2.01M

However a couple of Big 12 guys had some doubts and saw some holes in the data and came up with this adjusted rating based on what is defined in the linked article.
I believe Bullet has referred to this article before. I'm glad I found it.

Adjusted Ratings:
SEC: 2.58M
B1G: 1.62M
XII: 1.57M
ACC: 1.41M
PAC: 1.34M

Ratings drive advertising rates which drive larger payouts to the conferences. This is why I believe that the next round of realignment will be about content and not markets. I believe the markets will be taken care of through bundled networks and partnership agreements for an exchange of content games. We'll see.

(04-22-2015 10:51 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:11 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Scott from PAC 12 said the backup plan for number 13 and 14 are Boise State and San Diego State. It was a hint from the PAC 12 that they are done trying to work to get the Tex-Homa schools. Academics seems to be in the back burner now, and looking at the tv draw of schools. If the next 4 schools that the PAC 12 will go to would be Boise State (football product), San Diego State, Hawaii and Colorado State. Scott did say Boise State have improved on their academics and growing fast that way. I think Idaho state educators are moving Boise State in the direction as a research institution than with Idaho. Boise State can draw students to the state and all that than Idaho. Plus with their last bowl appearance? The ratings was very high.

Please provide a link that backs that up?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about this statement:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/nov/...-12-futur/

My take is that Scott was just being politically correct when he was asked about Boise State and SDSU and replied that those schools would be "on the list" for consideration if the Pac-12 ever decided to expand. But note that Scott also made a point of saying there are "a lot of criteria that we looked at last time, that I’m sure we’d look at again." Translation: It's not just about football success, it's also about a lot of other things, including academics.

(04-22-2015 11:03 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You guys must be talking about 10 years from now because there is no way that four schools are left behind. I guess you folks just don't understand the voting issues to dissolve the conference. That alone keeps your little "four left out scenario" from EVER happening before the GoR runs out. If they try to leave out two, because of the eight vote scenario, then those two are going to rake the other eight over the coals and it is quite possible that FOX jumps in with them on that litigation.

This isn't picking teams for kickball people.

You are correct. The Big 12 has 6 valuable Universities---- Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, West Virginia and a Kansas school.

TV will make this happen and the left behind 4 will be forgotten.

Such is life in the make believe realignment world.

I was under the impression that the Big 12 had only FOUR schools that had any real marketing value.

I don't know this all sounds like fishing with a led weight for bait. You seem to want to look at this solely from a financial point of view. To have conferences this large would only mean a longer duration between what most teams would deem a successful season. You can only pack so many clowns in a car before someone has to ride on top. This is the reason the Jags ,Rams,Raiders, and Chargers are all looking for new homes.

There were no numbers for Duke (as a private) in the OP, and also no numbers for something like ECU. I think Duke might be a great fit (as long as Cutcliffe is there at least) but ECU is probably a no go no matter what.

I do think that the most logical expansion at this point is from the west, shifting Alabama and Auburn to the East, which solves all sorts of scheduling issues and possibly allows for no permanent extra-division rivals.

If I were A&M I would push hard against Texas, but maybe make a go for Oklahoma and Baylor. Definitely room for a second Texas team and no matter how much Baylor gets maligned, I would rather have them than Tech or TCU.

That leaves Texas and Kansas to the Big 10 or a Texas/Texas Tech/OK State/Kansas St to the PAC when the Big 10 grabs Kansas/UConn.

If the Big 10 is able to get Mizzou, I think that is when the SEC thinks about Virginia Tech. The ACC could easily replace with Cincy. And YES I KNOW about GORs, etc.

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

Oklahoma/Baylor joining A&M in the SEC would also be a hard blow to Texas. They would become Snow White to the Seven Dwarfs, and their recruiting could suffer tremendously. They would either have to go Indy, or go hat in hand to the ACC or Big Ten asking to be taken in.

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

That being said, ESPN may want a few things that they don't already have, and may try to persuade the SEC to be the vehicle for adding those pieces. But we may be past the point where ESPN can just throw some more dollars at the SEC and get what it wants. There just aren't many more amenities SEC schools can add with these extra dollars to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.

For all these reasons, I have felt that further P5 realignment is a longshot.

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

That being said, ESPN may want a few things that they don't already have, and may try to persuade the SEC to be the vehicle for adding those pieces. But we may be past the point where ESPN can just throw some more dollars at the SEC and get what it wants. There just aren't many more amenities SEC schools can add with these extra dollars to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.

For all these reasons, I have felt that further P5 realignment is a longshot.

The biggest reason I do think we will see more movement is because huge brands like Texas and Oklahoma don't want to be locked long term into a position of income disparity, especially now that A&M is in the SEC. Texas will always have plenty of money, it's just that they don't want to lose ground they have already gained and they don't want their brand to suffer by comparison. I think that is enough of a reason right there that something is still likely to bust loose.

As far as the ACC goes really Clemson and Florida State would be the only ones that could become dissatisfied enough to look around. Clemson a little less so, FSU a little more than people might realize. The rest of them I believe would simply be happy with the status quo.

As to the SEC's eyes on the Big 12, we know who we would like and who we would take, but we aren't going to initiate a raid. We'll respond to one, but we won't start it. BTW, I think Oklahoma and Baylor would be great additions. I'm not worried about Baylor's private status. They are Southern Baptist and that is the majority in every SEC state except possibly Louisiana. They will have a lot of secondary followers. West Virginia is a viable candidate but logistically is only close to Kentucky, unless we were to raid the ACC for the Virginia Tech. Knoxville is close enough to count, but having a second Texas school (and the one I deem to be the state's #3 University) would be more productive for us in the long run. Oklahoma gives you everything you want if you are the SEC. They deliver DFW, the state of Oklahoma, and are a national brand.

And then there is that old question that nobody really seems to have the answer to: Would Oklahoma be able to separate from Oklahoma State? Whether it's legal, political or maybe just not publicly popular there has always been the notion that those schools could not be divided. Does anyone really know the truth?

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

That being said, ESPN may want a few things that they don't already have, and may try to persuade the SEC to be the vehicle for adding those pieces. But we may be past the point where ESPN can just throw some more dollars at the SEC and get what it wants. There just aren't many more amenities SEC schools can add with these extra dollars to gain or maintain a competitive advantage.

For all these reasons, I have felt that further P5 realignment is a longshot.

I basically agree with all of this, save for the notion that any conference or school ever feels it has enough money. Universities essentially have unlimited missions, so their desire for more $$$ is never-ending.

Still, even with that said, I agree that further P5 realignment is a real longshot. Oklahoma and Texas will stay in the Big 12, and so that removes the moving parts.

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 04:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Would the SEC settle for Oklahoma and either TCU or Houston?

The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

The SEC needs to improve its basketball content....

(04-23-2015 02:03 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The SEC would gladly take OK by itself, it will never have any interest in TCU or Houston.

Adding both Oklahoma and West Virginia makes some sense to me, though Oklahoma and Baylor would allow them to move Missouri to the west and shift Alabama and Auburn to the east. That helps to balance the divisions competitively, while largely removing any need to assign permanent cross division opponents. Either one would seriously damage the Big 12, and could even be a fatal blow.

If you look at the SEC or B1G, what does one see? Flagships. These conferences want flagships, nothing else, unless it's a super-power private, read Notre Dame*, or in the case of TAMU, a school so big and powerful it would be a flagship if it was in just about any other state. The SEC never wants to settle for the second, much less third, banana school in any state. Baylor and TCU don't come close to being flagships so I can't see the SEC ever being interested in either. WVU, as flawed as it is, could possibly be on the SEC radar because it is a flagship. I doubt it, as WVU doesn't really bring any eyeballs and the SEC has passed on them before, but it is possible.

Beyond that, I don't see why the SEC has any real desire to damage the Big 12. The Big 12 is a good partner: Close enough for fans to care a lot about games vs Big 12 teams, lots of history between the southern Big 12 teams and SEC West teams, a sharing with the Texas schools and Oklahoma schools in that deep-south football culture, but not really a threat in terms of market overlap and the like. I think that's why the SEC chose to partner with the Big 12, not the ACC, in the Sugar Bowl.

Would the SEC love to acquire Texas or Oklahoma? Of course, who wouldn't? But I don't see the SEC plotting to bust up the Big 12 by taking lesser schools.


* ... and likely Duke.

I agree with you that the SEC has no desire to damage the Big 12. In fact, I think they want to see it remain strong and viable. Personally, I think their desire to have the Big 12 as a friendly rival outweighs their desire to add individual schools like Oklahoma and Texas. Fact is, the SEC doesn't really need much of anything that it cares about that it doesn't already have.

The SEC needs to improve its basketball content....

That's why I included the phrase "that it cares about" in my statement.