Doubt it happens but I think a full merger with the SEC would give really fun matchups.

http://newsok.com/article/5513732

(08-13-2016 11:10 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Doubt it happens but I think a full merger with the SEC would give really fun matchups.

http://newsok.com/article/5513732

On the surface it sounds like a sneaky way to force Mizzou and A&M back in. But the thought has some potential. 4 six school divisions, a conference semi final & final, and greater scheduling flexibility.

What it offers the SEC is all of Texas, a hamstrung Big 10, and oodles of power football, 3 more AAU schools, and eventually at some point in the distant future an even more compelling reason for 8 to 12 ACC schools to head our way.

What it does is dilute the SEC brand, saddle us with a Texas that would be convinced that it had enough voting minions to still wield a good deal more power than an equitable SEC is experienced in dealing with, and potentially cause disharmony. After all it is their legacy.

Still, if Mizzou, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State formed a 6 team voting block of old Big 8 schools and Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Baylor formed one of old SWC schools the core 10 of the SEC plus South Carolina could still hold their own. Arkansas?

SEC:

North: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
West: Arkansas, Baylor, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M
South: Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia

The Semis would be a really nice touch and the SECN would be huge.

CBS might actually drool!

Then who knows one day it might have two more 6 team divisions.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Wake Forest

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech

I'm going to go ahead and take credit for this idea.

I suggested it on Mr. SEC years ago and have talked about it here to the point where people probably think I'm nuts. Anyway, I'd never heard anyone mention it before so I'm calling it the ATU plan.

In all seriousness, I've always liked the idea if for no more reason than what the article suggests...it would pool rights and alter the paradigm for how networks negotiate with conferences. The more content a league owns, the more leverage they would have in negotiations.

I also though this quote was interesting:

Quote:Except twice in the last six months, prime decision-makers in our state, independent of each other, have floated an idea to me. An influential person at OU, then the same from OSU.

Merger. Merge with preferably the SEC, but if not, the Pac-12. Not a split. Not six schools heading west, like was discussed in 2010. A merger. Ten Big 12 schools join the SEC to form a 24-team conference, or join the Pac-12 to form a 22-team conference.

It's fun to talk about, but usually this sort of thing is the brain child of bloggers and writers looking for something to talk about. If it's true that influential people actually are considering this then maybe just maybe it has a chance.

I would align it slightly different from JR though.

Midwest: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Southwest: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Arkansas

South: Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

5 division games, 2 permanent rivals, and 1 rotating match-up from each of the other 3 divisions = 10 conference games

This is an awful idea.

I don't like it.

(08-14-2016 01:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't like it.

I never said I liked it either. I merely pointed out how it could make money and why. That makes it possible.

(08-14-2016 01:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 01:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't like it.

I never said I liked it either. I merely pointed out how it could make money and why. That makes it possible.

But if money is the only justification, is it worth it? Your synopsis is predicated on ESPN's current business model lasting for at least another 10 years. I just don't see how that's possible. I Know I could be wrong but I think the next distribution model will be the conferences owning the media rights and selling games and/or packages for national distribution. Something similar to the RSN model that MLB is using. The Mouse just isn't set up for that and unless they start dropping channels I don't see how they change course.

(08-14-2016 03:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 01:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 01:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't like it.

I never said I liked it either. I merely pointed out how it could make money and why. That makes it possible.

But if money is the only justification, is it worth it? Your synopsis is predicated on ESPN's current business model lasting for at least another 10 years. I just don't see how that's possible. I Know I could be wrong but I think the next distribution model will be the conferences owning the media rights and selling games and/or packages for national distribution. Something similar to the RSN model that MLB is using. The Mouse just isn't set up for that and unless they start dropping channels I don't see how they change course.

Go back and read what I've written about this. I said ESPN might well want to tie up this much property until their business model can adjust to innovation. That's a safer avenue to pursue than short term contracts. A merger would merit a new contract, with a GOR, for an extended period of time. It wouldn't matter then what new companies did. If you want Big 12, ACC, or SEC product you'll buy it from ESPN. And what's more the SEC and Big 12 get a higher % of viewer participation from their total number of viewers than any of the other conferences.

ESPN could by sewing up 16 of the top 20 football programs, a vast majority of a growing college baseball audience, and at least 50% or more of the top basketball schools, after they've purchased the streaming capabilities of MLB, has set itself up not only to be a broadcaster, but also a product broker to the rest of these fledgling delivery systems.

Let that sink in.

(08-14-2016 03:13 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 01:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 01:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't like it.

I never said I liked it either. I merely pointed out how it could make money and why. That makes it possible.

But if money is the only justification, is it worth it? Your synopsis is predicated on ESPN's current business model lasting for at least another 10 years. I just don't see how that's possible. I Know I could be wrong but I think the next distribution model will be the conferences owning the media rights and selling games and/or packages for national distribution. Something similar to the RSN model that MLB is using. The Mouse just isn't set up for that and unless they start dropping channels I don't see how they change course.

Go back and read what I've written about this. I said ESPN might well want to tie up this much property until their business model can adjust to innovation. That's a safer avenue to pursue than short term contracts. A merger would merit a new contract, with a GOR, for an extended period of time. It wouldn't matter then what new companies did. If you want Big 12, ACC, or SEC product you'll buy it from ESPN. And what's more the SEC and Big 12 get a higher % of viewer participation from their total number of viewers than any of the other conferences.

ESPN could by sewing up 16 of the top 20 football programs, a vast majority of a growing college baseball audience, and at least 50% or more of the top basketball schools, after they've purchased the streaming capabilities of MLB, set itself up not only to be a broadcaster, but also a product broker to the rest of these fledgling delivery systems and to FOX if they want Southern product.

I completely understand why someone would recoil at this idea, but there are a few things to consider here


1. As conferences compete against each other for time slots and money from networks, the networks retain most of the leverage in negotiations. There are fewer bidders than products to buy in other words. Tramel is right that one of the reasons professional leagues bring down so much money is because, as far as their content goes, they are the only game in town. As it stands, college conferences don't have that dynamic working in their favor.

2. The biggest membership issue I see here is not the brining on of little brothers, who would probably be eternally grateful and loyal to the 'all for one and one for all' ethos, but UT itself. I don't think anyone on this board is much of a fan of UT and I'm obviously not talking about athletics. The bright side is that UT would likely lose influence. The other TX schools cling to UT because they have to. UT is the sugar daddy that provides all others with a place at the table. You remove that dynamic and all of a sudden those schools aren't so motivated to take UT's side against their own better judgement. UT would be one of 24 and while they would have more influence than some others, they wouldn't be in a position to throw their weight around and dominate others.

I've thought for a while that UT is politically linked to some of their little brothers. They tried to take them to the PAC when there was no GOR. The politicians are trying to pressure them now to step in on behalf of Houston. Even though no other conference would want that many TX schools, UT seems unable to move away from them. Of course, UT loves their fiefdom, but they've yet to demonstrate an ability to jettison it.

3. We will dominate TX. JR alluded to this earlier, but I just want to hammer it home. A&M gave us access and a strong presence. A move like this would lock down one of the richest, fastest growing states in the country. We'll also add a bigger chunk of the Midwest and a slice of the Mid-Atlantic. Our brand will spread to previously untapped regions of the country.

4. The content will be huge. You can play rivals, familiar opponents, and what feels like a non-conference game all with the added intensity of a conference race. Why is that attractive? Well, the revenue potential is much greater for one, but athletically you have greater diversity of content. What the SECN will have at its disposal would be roughly equivalent to one of the more prominent national channels.

5. I know some of the current Big 12 schools aren't as strong academically as what we would like to add to the fold, but some of them are excellent obviously. If we can build a greater consortium then I think we should take the opportunity. Rice, Tulane, and Emory should be involved too. The Big 12 also has several Ag schools and while they aren't usually regarded as excellent, that doesn't mean they aren't just as valuable to society. STEM doesn't do anyone a lot of good if we can't eat. Forming a stronger Ag consortium is probably a good idea too.

Besides, aren't we all too dumb to play foosball with all those folks out on the West Coast?

It would totally mean the collapse of the academic powerhouse that is Oregon is if they played LSU on a regular basis.