(06-02-2016 08:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  JR,

If the SEC wants to take both, knock yourselves out!

In my opinion, though, KU would be a much better addition to go with OU. You get KU-Missouri within the SEC. Big basketball upgrade as well. And a team in football that can actually help boost up the wins of your other 37 elite football brands, instead of adding yet another elite football brand to beat each other up in conf play.

And both OK and KS state politics align very well with SEC states politics. Very red, both of them.

The SEC will take both OU and OSU about the same time basketball schools become top expansion targets.

(06-02-2016 11:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 10:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Since both OU and Texas are high value and Texas will want to take along another Texas school when they depart, ...

I'm not 100% sure that Texas has that as an option if they want to move east rather than west and thinks they are "too good" for the SEC.

Texas / Kansas would be the move to the Big Ten that would draw no sniffs about academic respectability, and among those that would generate pushback, Texas and OU would be the only one where I can see it actually getting pushed through, precisely due to the value of OU.

But in terms of media value, I reckon OU to the SEC is one of the bigger potential wins on the board at the end of the Big12 GOR, given the strong complementarity between OU and Texas A&M in DFW and the reinforcement to Texas A&M's leading position in Houston. And add on top of that, the state of Texas continues to pump out a lot of football players. It could be one of the relatively few moves left that are worth two spots on their own.

Which is why although I do not think OU / OkSU to the SEC is short odds, I don't think its an incredibly long odds dark horse either. And that would make it one of OkSU's better long term hopes.

I don't think Texas will head to the Big 10. ESPN obligations might get in the way. But if that is the case it won't limit Kansas's ability to head North, nor will it affect the Big 10's picking up of a football brand.

For there to be an equitable and somewhat orderly break up of the Big 12 I think some limited deck furniture rearrangement may be in order. I also still believe that if Texas heads to the ACC (LHN in tow or not) that they will want to take another state school.

If we go for full cost of attendance type scholarships with stipends we may yet lose a couple of privates. Should Wake be one of those then no shifting will be required. If not something will give. It could be an ACC school that is in a coveted market but not part of the core like Virginia Tech, or it could be an SEC school closely tied to Kansas like Missouri, or it could be something we aren't even thinking about presently. I'm not saying any of those mentioned would even be interested. I'm just offering them up as the kinds of workarounds that may be put forward should the possibility of placing the Big 12 schools arise prior to the GOR's expiration. It is the only way that many of those schools presently in the Big 12 find a home IMO.

Once the GOR is up it would just be a bidding war for Texas, OU, and Kansas and that's about it.

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

- Kentucky wants to be a top 50 research school (they're actually a lot closer than I would've assumed)
- 3 hrs to Indiana and Ohio St
- nice boost in basketball for the Big Ten, national brand in bball
- should provide wins to the elite Big Ten East football brands (ie, Rutgers and Maryland)
- contiguous state

Downside is that the state has a relatively small population, so not as many new cable subs for BTN.


Meh. Just throwing it out there.

I have not read Kentucky being vetted. We know Vandy was vetted the same year as the Oklahoma and Kansas pairing was vetted. That is according to the Omaha World.

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

It actually isn't, and I've speculated about it before.

I think that when the dust settles on the B1G media deals, the B1G will not only be making a ton more money than the PAC, B12, and ACC, they will also be making significantly more than the SEC as well. Enough for them to lure away border-state SEC schools.

Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

The SEC may very well regret not having some kind of GOR or exit fee.

(06-02-2016 08:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 07:38 PM)chess Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 06:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  I doubt OU would schedule Texas and OK State in football every year if they all ended up in different conferences.

Yes, they would. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are very close. Like Georgia/Georgia Tech and Clemson/South Carolina, a Oklahoma/Oklahoma State game could be a way to end the season.

Additionally, Texas and Oklahoma has recently stated the game is important.

What this means, in my opinion, is that Oklahoma will value an 8 game conference schedule.

If Oklahoma ends up in the Big 10, like many here are predicting, I highly doubt they schedule both of those schools every year.

The Red River Rivalry is the single most valuable (regular season) game in ALL of college sports, without any sort of debate. It is not so much the TV value of it, as much as it is the unique setting that causes/forces donors of each school to pony up BIG time in order to get the very limited seats for the game (roughly 40-45k per team). That game by itself is worth tens of millions per year to each school in actual revenue generated, and additional donations received for ticket placement. I cannot speak for Bedlam, but from everything any Texas or Oklahoma fan has ever said to me, that game is not going away voluntarily from either side.

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

- Kentucky wants to be a top 50 research school (they're actually a lot closer than I would've assumed)
- 3 hrs to Indiana and Ohio St
- nice boost in basketball for the Big Ten, national brand in bball
- should provide wins to the elite Big Ten East football brands (ie, Rutgers and Maryland)
- contiguous state

Downside is that the state has a relatively small population, so not as many new cable subs for BTN.


Meh. Just throwing it out there.

"The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to “make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity,” Gee said. “So you won’t see us adding Louisville,” a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

After a pause followed by laughter from the audience, Gee added that the Big Ten wouldn’t add the University of Kentucky, either."

- Gordon Gee, May 2013.

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

- Kentucky wants to be a top 50 research school (they're actually a lot closer than I would've assumed)
- 3 hrs to Indiana and Ohio St
- nice boost in basketball for the Big Ten, national brand in bball
- should provide wins to the elite Big Ten East football brands (ie, Rutgers and Maryland)
- contiguous state

Downside is that the state has a relatively small population, so not as many new cable subs for BTN.


Meh. Just throwing it out there.

As someone who lives in KY I can tell you that would never happen. Kentucky is perfectly fine being the king of an otherwise (mostly ) horrible basketball conference, and living vicariously through their conference mates on the gridiron. They would never, ever, voluntarily leave.

(06-03-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

This would NEVER happen voluntarily. Also I am not sure if you are aware how much animosity there is between Kentucky and the two primary neighbors to the north. Absolutely no way they would voluntarily align themselves with either Indiana or Ohio State. Like not even a little bit. The Ohio River might as well be the Amazon River in terms of who close the states are, because with the exception of the two cities that sit on the borders (Louisville and Cincinnati) whose metro areas span two states - by the way the rest of Kentucky is FAR different than those two areas - the three states are night and day.

(06-03-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

It actually isn't, and I've speculated about it before.

I think that when the dust settles on the B1G media deals, the B1G will not only be making a ton more money than the PAC, B12, and ACC, they will also be making significantly more than the SEC as well. Enough for them to lure away border-state SEC schools.

Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

The SEC may very well regret not having some kind of GOR or exit fee.

If UK wanted to go I don't think the SEC wouldn't lose that much sleep over it IMO. The question would be how long it would take to heal to rift between the UK administration and the fanbase over such a move IMO.

Playing in the SEC means that UK gets HOME GAMES vs. SEC opponents. Do you really think their fans would give up playing Vandy, Tennessee, Georgia and Ole Miss after 84 years? For what? If you said yes you do not understand Saturdays in the South at all.

(06-03-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

It actually isn't, and I've speculated about it before.

I think that when the dust settles on the B1G media deals, the B1G will not only be making a ton more money than the PAC, B12, and ACC, they will also be making significantly more than the SEC as well. Enough for them to lure away border-state SEC schools.

Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

The SEC may very well regret not having some kind of GOR or exit fee.

If the Big 10 gets $250 million for their first half of their rights package (the released wording said up to $250 million because there are contingencies that must be met) and if they manage $150 million for the second half (which remains to be see because it is low quality programming with the CCG thrown in as bait) they will be making around what the media projections claimed (44.5 million payout per school). And this would start in 2017-18.

Last year after revisions the SEC payout was around 35.7 million per school. With a full year of SECN money this year Quo it will be between 38 - 39 million. Both the Big 10 figures and SEC figures are without additions. A 5 million dollar advantage per school for Big 10 teams still leaves them (the Big 10) 10 million per school behind the SEC in total revenue disbursements.

I'd like to see the SEC school that would jump at the chance to be an outlier in the Big 10 for 10 million less.

So far we have Big 10 projections for two years from now versus hard numbers showing the SEC finished last year averaging 15 million more than the Big 10 in total revenue per member school.

The value of the SECN is set at 4 Billion. The BTN value is set at 1.5 Billion. The Big 10 schools own 49% of that 1.5 Billion in equity. The SEC schools have no equit, although an option to purchase is there. But why purchase equity in a dying model? I leave it to you to tell me which the better position is long term. Do you wan't 50 percent of the NET in a 4 Billion dollar network or 49% of the equity in a 1.5 Billion dollar network?

The Big 10 is a great conference and academically a skosh ahead of the ACC now that Maryland is out and Louisville is in. But it is not what it is represented to be by those who create the Great Lakes Souffle' out of every set of estimates and numbers and that goes for you too.

FOX overbid for 6 years in hopes of luring ESPN inventory to a FOX held conference. If it works then yes their total money could go up to around 50 million per school in payout. If it doesn't FOX doesn't lose much over the next 6 years and then it goes down.

What dying model?? Both BTN and SECN are simply organizations that own the exclusive rights to produce and distribute live telecasts of very desirable content.

Consumption of such telecasts isn't going anywhere, bub.

It may take a few years to iron out the details of the new distribution modality, but please don't pretend like all the money in distributing live telecasts of desirable content is going to magically go *poof*.

(06-03-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

It actually isn't, and I've speculated about it before.

I think that when the dust settles on the B1G media deals, the B1G will not only be making a ton more money than the PAC, B12, and ACC, they will also be making significantly more than the SEC as well. Enough for them to lure away border-state SEC schools.

Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

The SEC may very well regret not having some kind of GOR or exit fee.

If the Big 10 gets $250 million for their first half of their rights package (the released wording said up to $250 million because there are contingencies that must be met) and if they manage $150 million for the second half (which remains to be see because it is low quality programming with the CCG thrown in as bait) they will be making around what the media projections claimed (44.5 million payout per school). And this would start in 2017-18.

Last year after revisions the SEC payout was around 35.7 million per school. With a full year of SECN money this year Quo it will be between 38 - 39 million. Both the Big 10 figures and SEC figures are without additions. A 5 million dollar advantage per school for Big 10 teams still leaves them (the Big 10) 10 million per school behind the SEC in total revenue disbursements.

I'd like to see the SEC school that would jump at the chance to be an outlier in the Big 10 for 10 million less.

So far we have Big 10 projections for two years from now versus hard numbers showing the SEC finished last year averaging 15 million more than the Big 10 in total revenue per member school.

The value of the SECN is set at 4 Billion. The BTN value is set at 1.5 Billion. The Big 10 schools own 49% of that 1.5 Billion in equity. The SEC schools have no equit, although an option to purchase is there. But why purchase equity in a dying model? I leave it to you to tell me which the better position is long term. Do you wan't 50 percent of the NET in a 4 Billion dollar network or 49% of the equity in a 1.5 Billion dollar network?

The Big 10 is a great conference and academically a skosh ahead of the ACC now that Maryland is out and Louisville is in. But it is not what it is represented to be by those who create the Great Lakes Souffle' out of every set of estimates and numbers and that goes for you too.

FOX overbid for 6 years in hopes of luring ESPN inventory to a FOX held conference. If it works then yes their total money could go up to around 50 million per school in payout. If it doesn't FOX doesn't lose much over the next 6 years and then it goes down.

I'm not sure I'm following your math. But if you are comparing average total revenues per school to arrive at a $10 million advantage for the SEC, that's not the relevant measure for any individual school. Much of the SEC's revenue advantage comes from its attendance advantage - an advantage that varies widely from school to school. For those SEC schools at the low end of the internally generated revenues, a move to the B1G becomes more feasible if they perceive other advantages besides just revenue.

I don't think it would be too farfetched, for example, for the B1G to make a play for both Missouri and Kansas, creating a super rational western division of schools with tremendous cultural and educational affinity with one another. Missouri might be willing to give up a few bucks to be aligned with neighbors like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois et al instead of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida.

Then, if such a move were to happen, the SEC would be in the market for not two new members, but one. (Oklahoma, anyone?)

What makes you think that the Big Ten wants Missouri? Missouri is just Oklahoma with an AAU membership (for some reason). Not a high research school, by any means.

(06-04-2016 10:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

It actually isn't, and I've speculated about it before.

I think that when the dust settles on the B1G media deals, the B1G will not only be making a ton more money than the PAC, B12, and ACC, they will also be making significantly more than the SEC as well. Enough for them to lure away border-state SEC schools.

Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

The SEC may very well regret not having some kind of GOR or exit fee.

If the Big 10 gets $250 million for their first half of their rights package (the released wording said up to $250 million because there are contingencies that must be met) and if they manage $150 million for the second half (which remains to be see because it is low quality programming with the CCG thrown in as bait) they will be making around what the media projections claimed (44.5 million payout per school). And this would start in 2017-18.

Last year after revisions the SEC payout was around 35.7 million per school. With a full year of SECN money this year Quo it will be between 38 - 39 million. Both the Big 10 figures and SEC figures are without additions. A 5 million dollar advantage per school for Big 10 teams still leaves them (the Big 10) 10 million per school behind the SEC in total revenue disbursements.

I'd like to see the SEC school that would jump at the chance to be an outlier in the Big 10 for 10 million less.

So far we have Big 10 projections for two years from now versus hard numbers showing the SEC finished last year averaging 15 million more than the Big 10 in total revenue per member school.

The value of the SECN is set at 4 Billion. The BTN value is set at 1.5 Billion. The Big 10 schools own 49% of that 1.5 Billion in equity. The SEC schools have no equit, although an option to purchase is there. But why purchase equity in a dying model? I leave it to you to tell me which the better position is long term. Do you wan't 50 percent of the NET in a 4 Billion dollar network or 49% of the equity in a 1.5 Billion dollar network?

The Big 10 is a great conference and academically a skosh ahead of the ACC now that Maryland is out and Louisville is in. But it is not what it is represented to be by those who create the Great Lakes Souffle' out of every set of estimates and numbers and that goes for you too.

FOX overbid for 6 years in hopes of luring ESPN inventory to a FOX held conference. If it works then yes their total money could go up to around 50 million per school in payout. If it doesn't FOX doesn't lose much over the next 6 years and then it goes down.

I'm not sure I'm following your math. But if you are comparing average total revenues per school to arrive at a $10 million advantage for the SEC, that's not the relevant measure for any individual school. Much of the SEC's revenue advantage comes from its attendance advantage - an advantage that varies widely from school to school. For those SEC schools at the low end of the internally generated revenues, a move to the B1G becomes more feasible if they perceive other advantages besides just revenue.

I don't think it would be too farfetched, for example, for the B1G to make a play for both Missouri and Kansas, creating a super rational western division of schools with tremendous cultural and educational affinity with one another. Missouri might be willing to give up a few bucks to be aligned with neighbors like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois et al instead of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida.

Then, if such a move were to happen, the SEC would be in the market for not two new members, but one. (Oklahoma, anyone?)

It's the average for the 14 schools of each conference Ken D. It's not complicated and the advantage from that average was actually 15 million for the SEC last year and those numbers are out if you care to look at them. And for the record the SEC advantage in total revenue comes not only from attendance where we average over 10,000 more per game than the Big 10, but it also comes from greater ticket pricing, greater donations for the rights to purchase tickets, greater merchandising revenue, and the concessions numbers aren't bad either.

TV revenue is less than 25% of the revenue total for most schools. To argue simply TV revenue is to argue about who has the stronger left leg. It is not reflective of the health and strength of the whole body. The only school that would likely benefit financially from a move to the Big 10 is Vanderbilt which is wonderfully endowed and has had that option before and simply turned it down.

My point is that even if the Big 10 gets a boost to 44.5 by the its new contracts (a number predicated upon the $400 million figure for the total contract) it will still lag the SEC in total revenue averaged by its member schools to the tune of 7 to 8 million per year.

TV revenue is an important aspect of the total revenue distribution but it is nonetheless just an aspect. For all the genital measuring that fan board posters want to do few ever venture into the realm of total revenue and there is a reason for that. The ACC isn't even in the same universe as the Big 10 and SEC when those numbers are the ones examined and the PAC and Big 12 lag well behind as well. It is that disparity that keeps things at a constant level of instability.

If most of the ACC schools got SEC level payouts for TV contracts they would still be dragging up the rear in total revenue.

Somewhere buried in the pages of this thread there is a complete list of the top revenue earners of last year. If athletic revenue and athletic investment were to become the standards for divisional separation then the FBS would be divided into 4 or 5 divisions. The gaps are significant at different levels.

Unless there was another motivator at work, revenue alone would never be a reason that an SEC or Big 10 school would leave their respective conferences.

I thought it was crazy for the big 10 to pass on missouri. Right now it just depends on how big the big 10 wants to get and what texas wants. IF the big 10 can land OU and KU, than the big 10 could easily target Texas and Missouri for spots 17 and 18. Would texas want to join the big 10 with KU and OU in the fold? IF so would they want another texas school, texas tech or Houston? and would missouir leave the sec for the big 10? i think missouri would leave if texas, OU and KU joined the big 10. OF course, the SEC isn't dumb which is why i think they will counter the big 10 going after KU and OU with a bid to OU and OK state combo. Given Texas is an ESPN property its probably unlikely texas would end up in the big 10 even if KU and OU joined, so the big 10 might just be content at 16 with those two.

Missouri would be a bridge to Kansas and down to Oklahoma to complete a regional presence. I wouldn't be against Missouri coming to the B1G if Kansas and Oklahoma came as well. Those three schools have a long history together to go together with Nebraska as well.

Such a move would complete a presence going from Omaha, down to Kansas City, down to Wichita, down to Dallas (Dallas carries Oklahoma) and then northeast to Springfield that continues to St. Louis that continues to Chicago and Indy.

And if Texas came with the grouping, then you just go south a little further than Dallas to San Antonio and then go back up through the direction that I listed in the paragraph above.

That makes more sense then trying to go from Tallahassee, FL to Atlanta to Virginia.

(06-04-2016 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 10:33 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

It actually isn't, and I've speculated about it before.

I think that when the dust settles on the B1G media deals, the B1G will not only be making a ton more money than the PAC, B12, and ACC, they will also be making significantly more than the SEC as well. Enough for them to lure away border-state SEC schools.

Kentucky is culturally of the south, but it borders on B1G territory and doesn't share the SEC fanaticism for football. They could conceivably be lured away by a B1G offer.

The SEC may very well regret not having some kind of GOR or exit fee.

If the Big 10 gets $250 million for their first half of their rights package (the released wording said up to $250 million because there are contingencies that must be met) and if they manage $150 million for the second half (which remains to be see because it is low quality programming with the CCG thrown in as bait) they will be making around what the media projections claimed (44.5 million payout per school). And this would start in 2017-18.

Last year after revisions the SEC payout was around 35.7 million per school. With a full year of SECN money this year Quo it will be between 38 - 39 million. Both the Big 10 figures and SEC figures are without additions. A 5 million dollar advantage per school for Big 10 teams still leaves them (the Big 10) 10 million per school behind the SEC in total revenue disbursements.

I'd like to see the SEC school that would jump at the chance to be an outlier in the Big 10 for 10 million less.

So far we have Big 10 projections for two years from now versus hard numbers showing the SEC finished last year averaging 15 million more than the Big 10 in total revenue per member school.

The value of the SECN is set at 4 Billion. The BTN value is set at 1.5 Billion. The Big 10 schools own 49% of that 1.5 Billion in equity. The SEC schools have no equit, although an option to purchase is there. But why purchase equity in a dying model? I leave it to you to tell me which the better position is long term. Do you wan't 50 percent of the NET in a 4 Billion dollar network or 49% of the equity in a 1.5 Billion dollar network?

The Big 10 is a great conference and academically a skosh ahead of the ACC now that Maryland is out and Louisville is in. But it is not what it is represented to be by those who create the Great Lakes Souffle' out of every set of estimates and numbers and that goes for you too.

FOX overbid for 6 years in hopes of luring ESPN inventory to a FOX held conference. If it works then yes their total money could go up to around 50 million per school in payout. If it doesn't FOX doesn't lose much over the next 6 years and then it goes down.

I'm not sure I'm following your math. But if you are comparing average total revenues per school to arrive at a $10 million advantage for the SEC, that's not the relevant measure for any individual school. Much of the SEC's revenue advantage comes from its attendance advantage - an advantage that varies widely from school to school. For those SEC schools at the low end of the internally generated revenues, a move to the B1G becomes more feasible if they perceive other advantages besides just revenue.

I don't think it would be too farfetched, for example, for the B1G to make a play for both Missouri and Kansas, creating a super rational western division of schools with tremendous cultural and educational affinity with one another. Missouri might be willing to give up a few bucks to be aligned with neighbors like Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois et al instead of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida.

Then, if such a move were to happen, the SEC would be in the market for not two new members, but one. (Oklahoma, anyone?)

It's the average for the 14 schools of each conference Ken D. It's not complicated and the advantage from that average was actually 15 million for the SEC last year and those numbers are out if you care to look at them. And for the record the SEC advantage in total revenue comes not only from attendance where we average over 10,000 more per game than the Big 10, but it also comes from greater ticket pricing, greater donations for the rights to purchase tickets, greater merchandising revenue, and the concessions numbers aren't bad either.

TV revenue is less than 25% of the revenue total for most schools. To argue simply TV revenue is to argue about who has the stronger left leg. It is not reflective of the health and strength of the whole body. The only school that would likely benefit financially from a move to the Big 10 is Vanderbilt which is wonderfully endowed and has had that option before and simply turned it down.

My point is that even if the Big 10 gets a boost to 44.5 by the its new contracts (a number predicated upon the $400 million figure for the total contract) it will still lag the SEC in total revenue averaged by its member schools to the tune of 7 to 8 million per year.

TV revenue is an important aspect of the total revenue distribution but it is nonetheless just an aspect. For all the genital measuring that fan board posters want to do few ever venture into the realm of total revenue and there is a reason for that. The ACC isn't even in the same universe as the Big 10 and SEC when those numbers are the ones examined and the PAC and Big 12 lag well behind as well. It is that disparity that keeps things at a constant level of instability.

If most of the ACC schools got SEC level payouts for TV contracts they would still be dragging up the rear in total revenue.

Somewhere buried in the pages of this thread there is a complete list of the top revenue earners of last year. If athletic revenue and athletic investment were to become the standards for divisional separation then the FBS would be divided into 4 or 5 divisions. The gaps are significant at different levels.

Unless there was another motivator at work, revenue alone would never be a reason that an SEC or Big 10 school would leave their respective conferences.

Your points are the same as my point. Between the SEC and B1G, whatever differences there are or will be in media revenue are actually relatively minor when you compare them to the total revenues. IMO, they would neither encourage nor discourage a school from moving from one of these conferences to the other.

The only thing that would do that is some perceived intangible/cultural benefit. And while I think this unlikely to happen, the only school I can see in either conference that might perceive such a benefit is Missouri. They are sort of a cultural "tweener" that could be comfortable on either side of the fence. The B1G would likely be comfortable with Vandy, but not vice versa IMO.

From the B1G's point of view, they are not likely to ever separate themselves financially from the SEC, nor is any other P5 likely to catch up with them in the foreseeable future. If more money isn't a prime motivator, they could view Missouri as being more attractive, along with Kansas, as a way of "completing" their midwestern footprint.

I'm not saying any of that is likely. But neither is it out of the question, IMO.

(06-03-2016 08:51 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 07:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  How about this "out of left field" reshuffle trigger: Kentucky to the Big Ten. Yes I know, it is absurd.

- Kentucky wants to be a top 50 research school (they're actually a lot closer than I would've assumed)
- 3 hrs to Indiana and Ohio St
- nice boost in basketball for the Big Ten, national brand in bball
- should provide wins to the elite Big Ten East football brands (ie, Rutgers and Maryland)
- contiguous state

Downside is that the state has a relatively small population, so not as many new cable subs for BTN.


Meh. Just throwing it out there.

"The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to “make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity,” Gee said. “So you won’t see us adding Louisville,” a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

After a pause followed by laughter from the audience, Gee added that the Big Ten wouldn’t add the University of Kentucky, either."

- Gordon Gee, May 2013.

I guess that all depends on the credibility you place on anything Gee says.

Nebraska,

Yeah you're right ... except for those pesky little items of "Academics", "Research", "Population", and "Cable subscribers". Yeah, other than those items, you're right.

(Texas is not joining the Big Ten. So don't)

The big whale I think the big ten can land is Florida state. Texas and ou just seem too poliltcal to deal with having little brother schools and ESPN/Lhn. Uva and unc aren't leaving the acc as a first strike. If the big ten pulled fsu, than its open season. Yet, just jumping to 16 with fsu and Syracuse would be a great setup.