What if the SEC did expand with Houston?

I don't see it happening as it would duplicate a market.

According to Mr. SEC, the two flirted back in the waning days of the SWC. I think that opportunity has passed though.

I should add that unless we're getting OU in the deal, I don't think any TX school really helps us unless it's UT.

(12-08-2015 08:59 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I should add that unless we're getting OU in the deal, I don't think any TX school really helps us unless it's UT.

If we are going to double dip in this region to secure OU, it'll probably be with Oklahoma State or Texas; maybe Kansas but I would prefer Nebraska (never gonna happen though). Houston brings nothing A&M doesn't already provide in the Houston market.

The only way I see Houston getting into the P5 is if the PAC took Texas Tech for West Texas, T.C.U. for the DFW market, and Houston for the Gulf region. Those three fairly well cover the Texas market without UT. But that would be a long shot designed to help PACN distribution.

(12-09-2015 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The only way I see Houston getting into the P5 is if the PAC took Texas Tech for West Texas, T.C.U. for the DFW market, and Houston for the Gulf region. Those three fairly well cover the Texas market without UT. But that would be a long shot designed to help PACN distribution.

That is my thinking too. Houston should be hitting up the PAC for what it needs to do to reach invitation levels. Sooner or later the PAC is heading into TX. Its the most fertile market within easy reach. If they can't land UT, then it opens the door for Houston.

As far as the SEC, A&M got the SEC a large piece of Houston. Houston would not add all that much to the SEC. SMU would be a better TX add to get the SEC into DFW (assuming OU, Texas, and TCU are not available) if you are looking at a G5 addition. SMU may suck now, but their boosters will pay (literally) to make them competitive in a power conference. Of course, Cincinnati (OH) or ECU (NC) would be better than both to get you into new markets if the G5 is where you are going to expand from.

I would only take Houston if the Big 12 would take Arkansas.

OK, really not then either.

The only adds that truly interest me would be Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and Florida State. I understand those who want Clemson or one of the Virginia schools, but they don't get me all warm and fuzzy.

(12-23-2015 11:29 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I would only take Houston if the Big 12 would take Arkansas.

OK, really not then either.

The only adds that truly interest me would be Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke and Florida State. I understand those who want Clemson or one of the Virginia schools, but they don't get me all warm and fuzzy.

Actually if we were only going to add two, and given the likely direction of the delivery system to streaming, the best two additions would be Oklahoma and Florida State IMO. But both the Big 12 and ACC would have to be being breached at the same time for that to happen.

(12-23-2015 02:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The only way I see Houston getting into the P5 is if the PAC took Texas Tech for West Texas, T.C.U. for the DFW market, and Houston for the Gulf region. Those three fairly well cover the Texas market without UT. But that would be a long shot designed to help PACN distribution.

That is my thinking too. Houston should be hitting up the PAC for what it needs to do to reach invitation levels. Sooner or later the PAC is heading into TX. Its the most fertile market within easy reach. If they can't land UT, then it opens the door for Houston.

As far as the SEC, A&M got the SEC a large piece of Houston. Houston would not add all that much to the SEC. SMU would be a better TX add to get the SEC into DFW (assuming OU, Texas, and TCU are not available) if you are looking at a G5 addition. SMU may suck now, but their boosters will pay (literally) to make them competitive in a power conference. Of course, Cincinnati (OH) or ECU (NC) would be better than both to get you into new markets if the G5 is where you are going to expand from.

That's the thing. I don't know how much the SEC has to worry about actual media markets anymore. If the SEC added Houston and ECU. Would the conference actually make more money from subscription rates?

(12-23-2015 02:47 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 02:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The only way I see Houston getting into the P5 is if the PAC took Texas Tech for West Texas, T.C.U. for the DFW market, and Houston for the Gulf region. Those three fairly well cover the Texas market without UT. But that would be a long shot designed to help PACN distribution.

That is my thinking too. Houston should be hitting up the PAC for what it needs to do to reach invitation levels. Sooner or later the PAC is heading into TX. Its the most fertile market within easy reach. If they can't land UT, then it opens the door for Houston.

As far as the SEC, A&M got the SEC a large piece of Houston. Houston would not add all that much to the SEC. SMU would be a better TX add to get the SEC into DFW (assuming OU, Texas, and TCU are not available) if you are looking at a G5 addition. SMU may suck now, but their boosters will pay (literally) to make them competitive in a power conference. Of course, Cincinnati (OH) or ECU (NC) would be better than both to get you into new markets if the G5 is where you are going to expand from.

That's the thing. I don't know how much the SEC has to worry about actual media markets anymore. If the SEC added Houston and ECU. Would the conference actually make more money from subscription rates?

I don't think so. For instance there was some discussion with ESPN as to whether the SEC would be credited for total penetration into North Carolina with the addition of the Wolfpack. E.C.U. would be even lower in actual penetration numbers. Also A&M delivers a high percentage of Houston anyway and the content value for the Cougars would be nowhere near that of say an Oklahoma, Florida State, or even a Clemson.

I think content will matter more in 2 years time than markets do now.

(12-23-2015 05:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 02:47 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 02:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The only way I see Houston getting into the P5 is if the PAC took Texas Tech for West Texas, T.C.U. for the DFW market, and Houston for the Gulf region. Those three fairly well cover the Texas market without UT. But that would be a long shot designed to help PACN distribution.

That is my thinking too. Houston should be hitting up the PAC for what it needs to do to reach invitation levels. Sooner or later the PAC is heading into TX. Its the most fertile market within easy reach. If they can't land UT, then it opens the door for Houston.

As far as the SEC, A&M got the SEC a large piece of Houston. Houston would not add all that much to the SEC. SMU would be a better TX add to get the SEC into DFW (assuming OU, Texas, and TCU are not available) if you are looking at a G5 addition. SMU may suck now, but their boosters will pay (literally) to make them competitive in a power conference. Of course, Cincinnati (OH) or ECU (NC) would be better than both to get you into new markets if the G5 is where you are going to expand from.

That's the thing. I don't know how much the SEC has to worry about actual media markets anymore. If the SEC added Houston and ECU. Would the conference actually make more money from subscription rates?

I don't think so. For instance there was some discussion with ESPN as to whether the SEC would be credited for total penetration into North Carolina with the addition of the Wolfpack. E.C.U. would be even lower in actual penetration numbers. Also A&M delivers a high percentage of Houston anyway and the content value for the Cougars would be nowhere near that of say an Oklahoma, Florida State, or even a Clemson.

I think content will matter more in 2 years time than markets do now.

So unless its one of the few so called kings of football. Then it doesn't really matter who the SEC expands with. Because its more important to have content than to have certain markets? If that is the case. Shouldn't the SEC add for example Cincinnati and Houston because those programs would be more willing to play on Thursday and Friday nights. This is assuming that the SEC can't lure a king.

(12-23-2015 10:36 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 05:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 02:47 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(12-23-2015 02:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The only way I see Houston getting into the P5 is if the PAC took Texas Tech for West Texas, T.C.U. for the DFW market, and Houston for the Gulf region. Those three fairly well cover the Texas market without UT. But that would be a long shot designed to help PACN distribution.

That is my thinking too. Houston should be hitting up the PAC for what it needs to do to reach invitation levels. Sooner or later the PAC is heading into TX. Its the most fertile market within easy reach. If they can't land UT, then it opens the door for Houston.

As far as the SEC, A&M got the SEC a large piece of Houston. Houston would not add all that much to the SEC. SMU would be a better TX add to get the SEC into DFW (assuming OU, Texas, and TCU are not available) if you are looking at a G5 addition. SMU may suck now, but their boosters will pay (literally) to make them competitive in a power conference. Of course, Cincinnati (OH) or ECU (NC) would be better than both to get you into new markets if the G5 is where you are going to expand from.

That's the thing. I don't know how much the SEC has to worry about actual media markets anymore. If the SEC added Houston and ECU. Would the conference actually make more money from subscription rates?

I don't think so. For instance there was some discussion with ESPN as to whether the SEC would be credited for total penetration into North Carolina with the addition of the Wolfpack. E.C.U. would be even lower in actual penetration numbers. Also A&M delivers a high percentage of Houston anyway and the content value for the Cougars would be nowhere near that of say an Oklahoma, Florida State, or even a Clemson.

I think content will matter more in 2 years time than markets do now.

So unless its one of the few so called kings of football. Then it doesn't really matter who the SEC expands with. Because its more important to have content than to have certain markets? If that is the case. Shouldn't the SEC add for example Cincinnati and Houston because those programs would be more willing to play on Thursday and Friday nights. This is assuming that the SEC can't lure a king.

That's an interesting take, but it is much more affordable for the networks to pay schools like those 20 million or less to compete in conferences that basically just play their televised games on off nights than to pay them 40 million plus to play in conferences that play the majority of their games in prime time.