One of the key topics in expansion is market size and market penetration. With that in mind, I want to explore an idea and see where it takes us.

The question I have is does the SEC now own the Houston market? A&M is nearby and there are certainly a lot of LSU fans in the metro area to boot, but does the SEC control the area like it does Atlanta for instance?

Here's an interesting article from the Houston Chronicle on the ratings from last year's game. A little backstory, a list of the top 10 most watched games in Houston was pushed out by UH officials in recent months showing most of the top games were SEC contests and that the Big 12 had fallen way behind. The goal being to show UH's value to the Big 12 in reclaiming the Houston market for its own.

I thought it was interesting that the ratings for the SEC weren't as strong as the original report implied. We are number 1 in the market now, but the Big 12 still gets big ratings. The local product Houston gets pretty good ratings too.

The writer delved pretty deep into the ratings and came up with a list of how many times a school achieved at least a 2.0 rating. From the list, I wasn't surprised to see LSU games doing as well as they were. I was a little surprised that A&M's games weren't that high on the list. I figured they would be #1. Bama had the largest number of highly rated games, but I'm sure that's a function of recent success and regular placement on CBS. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, TCU, and Oklahoma State somehow had more highly rated games than A&M. Strangely enough, so did Ole Miss. Texas Tech was tied with A&M at 4 games with at least a 2.0 rating. This isn't counting Notre Dame, the B1G, the PAC, or the ACC and they all had a slice of the pie.

I want to be clear in saying I'm not knocking A&M's contribution. I am absolutely thrilled to have them in the league and their inclusion has certainly paid off. I think we need to be realistic though and understand that the state of TX is a massive, massive market and a diverse one at that.

This underscores an issue I think the SEC needs to address. It's good to have access to Texas, but it would be better if we controlled Texas, especially Houston. From A&M's perspective, I can see why they would want to be the only TX team in the league. With that said, I think the interests of the conference are served by expanding into the state further. Personally, I was advocating for a 2nd TX school back in 2011. I'm glad we took Mizzou, but I just wish we had been willing to delve into TX further while we were at it.

A few points about the Houston market...

-It is the 10th largest metro area in the nation with over 6.3 million people. As far as SEC markets go, DFW outranks it being the 8th largest metro area with just over 7 million. Miami is also slightly larger, being the 9th largest metro area with slightly over 6.3 million people...literally just a few thousand more than Houston. Atlanta is number 11 with just over 6 million. The top 7 largest metro areas are the usual suspects, however, all are located outside the SEC footprint.

-It's not just that TX is massive. It's that it's still growing. This isn't Illinois or New York that we're talking about. Texas is growing stronger economically with every passing decade.

Anyone who has taken note of my posts in recent weeks knows that I'm high on TCU as a means to plant a flag directly in the middle of one of Texas' major metro areas. I still believe that, but I also recognize that if we land OU and OSU that the need for TCU is mitigated. Plus you have plenty of A&M fans in DFW.

Purely from an economic standpoint, adding UT is the best move. We all know that, but there are obviously extenuating reasons why that's probably a bad idea. That and they probably don't want to be in the SEC anyway. With that in mind, it occurs to me that dominating both major metro areas of TX is probably not feasible unless we're doing the SEC/Big 12 merger and the odds of that happening are probably about as good as the odds of me dating Daisy Ridley so...

If we need to expand into TX again and if one of our goals is to lock down either Houston or DFW then what course do we take? Well, considering all the angles here, I think it might actually be a better idea to lock down Houston. How do you do that? By taking the Cougars.

Some of you just spit your drink and that's fine, but hear me out. Based on some of the ratings earlier, I think there's some pretty clear evidence that we don't really own the Houston market as much as the addition of A&M would suggest that we do. The market penetration aspect of this should not be dismissed, I don't think.

Athletically speaking, UH is probably poised to take off in the coming years and probably more so than TCU considering their small enrollment and alumni base. UH by contrast is a major state institution with over 40K students. They also happened to be located in one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country.

You have to ignore the political stuff and scroll down, but there's some interesting data on how popular TX schools are in their own state. I take the poll seriously because it's not based on social media interactions or other more spurious data. Take a look at the recent poll of college football fans in TX

UT is number 1 obviously with 26% of the state's support. A&M is #2 with 16%, a fairly significant drop from #1 to #2. Who is #3 though? That's right, Houston with 12%. They aren't too far behind A&M and they don't even have the benefit of playing a P5 schedule right now to bolster their exposure and revenue. Tech came in at 9% and there were 6% each for Baylor and TCU.

That's a bit stunning to me. I've thought for a while, like others, that Houston has a lot of potential, but had no idea they were that popular in the state. Of course, some of that is probably a little hype over their recent success. You always have to take things like that into account, but the number shouldn't be higher for them than the other P5s in the state based just on that.

A lot of that support is going to be based in Houston rather than being consistent statewide. Being that it is such a huge market, the numbers do add up however.

So we're not getting UT and we shouldn't want them anyway so the best way to increase our fan base in the state of TX is to ironically double down on a market we already have a reasonable presence in. That's assuming we can land OU and OSU to achieve greater penetration in DFW.

We've batted around the idea on this site before of adding a school like Miami or preferably Florida State in order to bolster our penetration of the state of FL. I don't think this is really any different of a situation.

I understand why A&M fans would probably think this is the nightmare scenario, but consider this: iron sharpens iron. Take the Alabama/Auburn rivalry as an example. The two schools have occupied the same conference throughout their existence. It's very hard to compete against an in-state rival that has no fundamental disadvantage over your own school, but the odd thing is that both are better for it. If the two did not furiously compete against each other for the same recruits and the same prizes then I honestly don't think either would be as accomplished as they are. Competition breeds excellence and that's one of the primary reasons the SEC is as strong as it is. Remember too that the state of AL only has about 4.8 million people. By itself, it's not nearly as large as Houston or Atlanta much less the entire state of TX.

I honestly don't think A&M fans would have anything to fear from an in-state rival joining the SEC. In fact, if that particular in-state rival came from a nearby market as opposed to half way across the state then I don't think that would make a difference. With A&M and Houston in the SEC, the league would have as much support as UT does and more importantly would control a large swath of the state. I don't think that should be underestimated especially considering one or two of the other P5s in the state will probably get relegated. Add to that, if Houston doesn't get into the SEC then they will likely go elsewhere. They are too valuable not to so they will probably get elevated anyway.

Do we want the PAC or the ACC in Houston? I don't. Do we want to control more of the state than any other league? I think we should if we're considering demographics 20 and 50 years into the future whether we're looking at a prime athletic addition in the near future or not.

Thoughts?

(08-18-2016 11:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One of the key topics in expansion is market size and market penetration. With that in mind, I want to explore an idea and see where it takes us.

The question I have is does the SEC now own the Houston market? A&M is nearby and there are certainly a lot of LSU fans in the metro area to boot, but does the SEC control the area like it does Atlanta for instance?

Here's an interesting article from the Houston Chronicle on the ratings from last year's game. A little backstory, a list of the top 10 most watched games in Houston was pushed out by UH officials in recent months showing most of the top games were SEC contests and that the Big 12 had fallen way behind. The goal being to show UH's value to the Big 12 in reclaiming the Houston market for its own.

I thought it was interesting that the ratings for the SEC weren't as strong as the original report implied. We are number 1 in the market now, but the Big 12 still gets big ratings. The local product Houston gets pretty good ratings too.

The writer delved pretty deep into the ratings and came up with a list of how many times a school achieved at least a 2.0 rating. From the list, I wasn't surprised to see LSU games doing as well as they were. I was a little surprised that A&M's games weren't that high on the list. I figured they would be #1. Bama had the largest number of highly rated games, but I'm sure that's a function of recent success and regular placement on CBS. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, TCU, and Oklahoma State somehow had more highly rated games than A&M. Strangely enough, so did Ole Miss. Texas Tech was tied with A&M at 4 games with at least a 2.0 rating. This isn't counting Notre Dame, the B1G, the PAC, or the ACC and they all had a slice of the pie.

I want to be clear in saying I'm not knocking A&M's contribution. I am absolutely thrilled to have them in the league and their inclusion has certainly paid off. I think we need to be realistic though and understand that the state of TX is a massive, massive market and a diverse one at that.

This underscores an issue I think the SEC needs to address. It's good to have access to Texas, but it would be better if we controlled Texas, especially Houston. From A&M's perspective, I can see why they would want to be the only TX team in the league. With that said, I think the interests of the conference are served by expanding into the state further. Personally, I was advocating for a 2nd TX school back in 2011. I'm glad we took Mizzou, but I just wish we had been willing to delve into TX further while we were at it.

A few points about the Houston market...

-It is the 10th largest metro area in the nation with over 6.3 million people. As far as SEC markets go, DFW outranks it being the 8th largest metro area with just over 7 million. Miami is also slightly larger, being the 9th largest metro area with slightly over 6.3 million people...literally just a few thousand more than Houston. Atlanta is number 11 with just over 6 million. The top 7 largest metro areas are the usual suspects, however, all are located outside the SEC footprint.

-It's not just that TX is massive. It's that it's still growing. This isn't Illinois or New York that we're talking about. Texas is growing stronger economically with every passing decade.

Anyone who has taken note of my posts in recent weeks knows that I'm high on TCU as a means to plant a flag directly in the middle of one of Texas' major metro areas. I still believe that, but I also recognize that if we land OU and OSU that the need for TCU is mitigated. Plus you have plenty of A&M fans in DFW.

Purely from an economic standpoint, adding UT is the best move. We all know that, but there are obviously extenuating reasons why that's probably a bad idea. That and they probably don't want to be in the SEC anyway. With that in mind, it occurs to me that dominating both major metro areas of TX is probably not feasible unless we're doing the SEC/Big 12 merger and the odds of that happening are probably about as good as the odds of me dating Daisy Ridley so...

If we need to expand into TX again and if one of our goals is to lock down either Houston or DFW then what course do we take? Well, considering all the angles here, I think it might actually be a better idea to lock down Houston. How do you do that? By taking the Cougars.

Some of you just spit your drink and that's fine, but hear me out. Based on some of the ratings earlier, I think there's some pretty clear evidence that we don't really own the Houston market as much as the addition of A&M would suggest that we do. The market penetration aspect of this should not be dismissed, I don't think.

Athletically speaking, UH is probably poised to take off in the coming years and probably more so than TCU considering their small enrollment and alumni base. UH by contrast is a major state institution with over 40K students. They also happened to be located in one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country.

You have to ignore the political stuff and scroll down, but there's some interesting data on how popular TX schools are in their own state. I take the poll seriously because it's not based on social media interactions or other more spurious data. Take a look at the recent poll of college football fans in TX

UT is number 1 obviously with 26% of the state's support. A&M is #2 with 16%, a fairly significant drop from #1 to #2. Who is #3 though? That's right, Houston with 12%. They aren't too far behind A&M and they don't even have the benefit of playing a P5 schedule right now to bolster their exposure and revenue. Tech came in at 9% and there were 6% each for Baylor and TCU.

That's a bit stunning to me. I've thought for a while, like others, that Houston has a lot of potential, but had no idea they were that popular in the state. Of course, some of that is probably a little hype over their recent success. You always have to take things like that into account, but the number shouldn't be higher for them than the other P5s in the state based just on that.

A lot of that support is going to be based in Houston rather than being consistent statewide. Being that it is such a huge market, the numbers do add up however.

So we're not getting UT and we shouldn't want them anyway so the best way to increase our fan base in the state of TX is to ironically double down on a market we already have a reasonable presence in. That's assuming we can land OU and OSU to achieve greater penetration in DFW.

We've batted around the idea on this site before of adding a school like Miami or preferably Florida State in order to bolster our penetration of the state of FL. I don't think this is really any different of a situation.

I understand why A&M fans would probably think this is the nightmare scenario, but consider this: iron sharpens iron. Take the Alabama/Auburn rivalry as an example. The two schools have occupied the same conference throughout their existence. It's very hard to compete against an in-state rival that has no fundamental disadvantage over your own school, but the odd thing is that both are better for it. If the two did not furiously compete against each other for the same recruits and the same prizes then I honestly don't think either would be as accomplished as they are. Competition breeds excellence and that's one of the primary reasons the SEC is as strong as it is. Remember too that the state of AL only has about 4.8 million people. By itself, it's not nearly as large as Houston or Atlanta much less the entire state of TX.

I honestly don't think A&M fans would have anything to fear from an in-state rival joining the SEC. In fact, if that particular in-state rival came from a nearby market as opposed to half way across the state then I don't think that would make a difference. With A&M and Houston in the SEC, the league would have as much support as UT does and more importantly would control a large swath of the state. I don't think that should be underestimated especially considering one or two of the other P5s in the state will probably get relegated. Add to that, if Houston doesn't get into the SEC then they will likely go elsewhere. They are too valuable not to so they will probably get elevated anyway.

Do we want the PAC or the ACC in Houston? I don't. Do we want to control more of the state than any other league? I think we should if we're considering demographics 20 and 50 years into the future whether we're looking at a prime athletic addition in the near future or not.

Thoughts?

The largest Auburn Alumni club in Texas is in Houston (Johnson Space Flight Center engineers). So with A&M, LSU and a mix of the others we are in good shape. IMO the best way to increase our hold in Houston is by landing a bigger % of DFW. A&M will be fine in Houston no matter what. Get Dallas too and you discourage the PAC or anyone else from pursuing Houston in any large way.

If the SEC only has 51% of the Houston and DFW markets we have all we need.

(08-19-2016 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The largest Auburn Alumni club in Texas is in Houston (Johnson Space Flight Center engineers). So with A&M, LSU and a mix of the others we are in good shape. IMO the best way to increase our hold in Houston is by landing a bigger % of DFW. A&M will be fine in Houston no matter what. Get Dallas too and you discourage the PAC or anyone else from pursuing Houston in any large way.

If the SEC only has 51% of the Houston and DFW markets we have all we need.

I'm sympathetic to that point and before looking at some of those ratings, I would have thought adding UH would be unnecessarily redundant. And it's not that I think A&M is insignificant in Houston or anything, far from it. It's just that I was surprised at how small a slice of the population is apparently loyal to them. I had been under the impression it was much higher.

I'm at least rethinking that now. Part of my thought process is that I'm not sure what the best way to crack DFW is. Obviously, adding OU and OSU would give us a nice foothold. Considering the growth of the state though, I don't think we'd regret getting a 2nd TX school. If there were a major state school in DFW or just outside of it that was Power worthy then I think the decision would be made for us. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I still like TCU, but their detractors have fair points about the alumni base and small enrollment. That could certainly sink their long term competitiveness should fortunes turn unfavorably for them on the football field.

People have been talking about UH for a long time as a bundle of potential. I don't see any reason why that would be incorrect. I guess I'm of the belief that striking while the iron is hot is a generally a good idea. Florida State went elsewhere when other suitors came sniffing around. While I don't think they would make the same decision today, I think we should learn from history.

I wouldn't say unequivocally that adding Houston is the best move, but I'm having trouble coming up with a better plan. UT is doubtful and we probably don't want them anyway. Texas Tech gives us another slice of the state, but most of their fan base is going to be in the more rural West Texas region. Baylor has issues we've covered. TCU has potential, I believe, but no extended track record of relevance. SMU is too small a player right now.

If the politicians get involved and we know they will in the state of TX then I could see a scenario where 4 TX schools retain Power status. A&M and UT obviously and I think there's a good chance whoever gets UT will have to take Texas Tech. Then there's Houston, the 3rd largest school in the state that now apparently has a lot of support in the Legislature which is something they didn't have 20 years ago when the Big 12 formed. It's an interesting mix of priorities.

I find it interesting that neither Baylor nor TCU has advocated for UH's inclusion in the Big 12. Now there's obvious competitive reasons behind that, but you'd think if they exist under the thumb of UT that they would have put a public statement behind what UT wants just as Texas Tech did. It all makes me think TCU and Baylor are in a more precarious position than maybe some of us would have first considered.

If UT isn't going to be pressured to rescue TCU and Baylor this time then they probably won't. TT is probably a different story. We've batted around the idea that the PAC would take TCU maybe, but if they're taking UT and TT then they may not be interested in a school like TCU if UT isn't advocating for them. The politicos obviously have less of a reason to protect TCU and Baylor if for no other reason than the small slice of the population they represent.

I think Houston could be a different story. The politicos seem to be getting involved now even though one would think they understand the shaky foundation the Big 12 sits on. And I think it's likely they'll get involved on behalf of Houston whenever the Big 12 finally dissolves. Here's an interesting thought...could the TX politicians put pressure on A&M to help UH? Houston is after all a much more Southern locale compared to some of the other markets in TX and the PAC probably isn't interested in extending itself that far if they can land UT.

I also go back to the discussions the SEC had with Houston in the past. Now, it's fairly obvious those were backup contingencies should we not be able to land A&M and UT. Problem, of course, is that we only got A&M and not both of them. Thinking of the discussions the league had with UH though, they must have seen inherent value or they wouldn't have bothered.

Considering the changing models of TV delivery(eyeballs mattering more than subs) and the emphasis on content that will likely occur, I think we have to seriously consider another TX school. That's one of the reasons I emphasized the size and growth of the state...eyeballs, eyeballs, eyeballs. Being that UH is a large state school, the potential to have statewide reach in the not too distant future exists to a much greater degree than any other school not named UT.

I don't know, something to muse over.

I'll say this, I think that the Aggies move to the SEC was the best thing that ever happened to UofH.

I wouldn't say the SEC owns Houston though.

The Cult of Texas still reigns down there.

SMU would be a very good cultural fit for the SEC. Great tailgating and large greek life. Football would improve instantly. The SEC would just need to require them to build a new top of the line 50,000 person stadium and add a baseball team.

Houston is a pro sports town first and foremost....

Also, I'm not sure about the Metro area statistics, but Houston is the 4th largest city in the U.S.

I live in Houston, and I don't see a Big XII or SEC stamp on this city...

I think Houston would be a great add to the SEC...I suggested a few years ago that the SEC should have added FSU and Houston for #15 and #16 and call it a done deal

Houston has A LOT of potential....I don't think people realize it. Just capturing a sliver of the pop. of Houston is still A LOT of people. If you had Alabama, Georgia, Florida coming here, you'd increase the local fanbase. A lot of people would go just to see the big name teams. LSU and A&M alums would actually love Houston being in the conference

Also, on a tangent, I'm surprised Rice is never mentioned in PAC 12 and B1G circles....expansion is retarded

(08-19-2016 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 11:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One of the key topics in expansion is market size and market penetration. With that in mind, I want to explore an idea and see where it takes us.
Thoughts?

IMO the best way to increase our hold in Houston is by landing a bigger % of DFW.

not a chance

you're going to capture Houston by adding a private univ. in fort worth?

sure buddy

(08-19-2016 02:29 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 12:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2016 11:48 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One of the key topics in expansion is market size and market penetration. With that in mind, I want to explore an idea and see where it takes us.
Thoughts?

IMO the best way to increase our hold in Houston is by landing a bigger % of DFW.

not a chance

you're going to capture Houston by adding a private univ. in fort worth?

sure buddy

Hey don't forget about the Mustangs!

Houston is an interesting animal, I lived there for 2 years and worked with as many alums and fans of Big 10 schools then I did Big 12 and SEC schools. Certainly LSU and Aggie have huge alumni counts in the greater Houston are but will always be tough for a single conference to dominate that market.

(08-19-2016 11:55 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  SMU would be a very good cultural fit for the SEC. Great tailgating and large greek life. Football would improve instantly. The SEC would just need to require them to build a new top of the line 50,000 person stadium and add a baseball team.

That would be more like a minimum 75,000 seat stadium and a brand new baseball venue with seating for 10,000 and a baseball team.

(08-19-2016 02:35 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Houston is an interesting animal, I lived there for 2 years and worked with as many alums and fans of Big 10 schools then I did Big 12 and SEC schools. Certainly LSU and Aggie have huge alumni counts in the greater Houston are but will always be tough for a single conference to dominate that market.

I think we don't have to dominate it, just have an equal share with all parties combined.

(08-19-2016 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:35 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Houston is an interesting animal, I lived there for 2 years and worked with as many alums and fans of Big 10 schools then I did Big 12 and SEC schools. Certainly LSU and Aggie have huge alumni counts in the greater Houston are but will always be tough for a single conference to dominate that market.

I think we don't have to dominate it, just have an equal share with all parties combined.

Agreed a split share of a huge market is better than domination of a tiny market...it is about total eye balls. There is a reason Rutgers of all athletic programs was attractive to the Big 10 and it wasn't due to athletic performance.

(08-19-2016 04:55 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:35 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Houston is an interesting animal, I lived there for 2 years and worked with as many alums and fans of Big 10 schools then I did Big 12 and SEC schools. Certainly LSU and Aggie have huge alumni counts in the greater Houston are but will always be tough for a single conference to dominate that market.

I think we don't have to dominate it, just have an equal share with all parties combined.

Agreed a split share of a huge market is better than domination of a tiny market...it is about total eye balls. There is a reason Rutgers of all athletic programs was attractive to the Big 10 and it wasn't due to athletic performance.

I think there's an argument for saturation though.

Now obviously we could never truly achieve that in a market as large as Houston, but being a dominate force there such as what we've achieved in Atlanta, I think, would pay dividends.

(08-19-2016 02:28 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Houston is a pro sports town first and foremost....

Also, I'm not sure about the Metro area statistics, but Houston is the 4th largest city in the U.S.

I live in Houston, and I don't see a Big XII or SEC stamp on this city...

I think Houston would be a great add to the SEC...I suggested a few years ago that the SEC should have added FSU and Houston for #15 and #16 and call it a done deal

Houston has A LOT of potential....I don't think people realize it. Just capturing a sliver of the pop. of Houston is still A LOT of people. If you had Alabama, Georgia, Florida coming here, you'd increase the local fanbase. A lot of people would go just to see the big name teams. LSU and A&M alums would actually love Houston being in the conference

Also, on a tangent, I'm surprised Rice is never mentioned in PAC 12 and B1G circles....expansion is retarded

This. The difference between ATL and HOU is that Atlanta is a major hub for one conference (SEC) and a minor one for another (ACC). I don't think Houston has the same potential. As such I'd submit that the SEC should focus on an expansion target that captures more of the state as opposed to a single metro area. I don't think adding UH would help with market penetration and I'm always skeptical of the 'just need to be in a brand name conference and we'll pop' narrative. While OU would definitely address that issue, they appear pulled in multiple directions. At this point, I'm willing to give OKST the nod.

SEC WEST: OKST, A&M, MIZZOU, LSU, ARK

I think that division has the potential to generate interest in Texas, especially if Texas joins the B10 and OU heads to the PAC. Moreover, it would be the addition of a school that wouldn't have a wandering eye or resentment about being in the SEC. If a deal has to be brokered to part out the B12 and SEC isn't assured one of the top three brand in order to justify going to 16, then I think this would be the best compromise.

(08-19-2016 05:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:28 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Houston is a pro sports town first and foremost....

Also, I'm not sure about the Metro area statistics, but Houston is the 4th largest city in the U.S.

I live in Houston, and I don't see a Big XII or SEC stamp on this city...

I think Houston would be a great add to the SEC...I suggested a few years ago that the SEC should have added FSU and Houston for #15 and #16 and call it a done deal

Houston has A LOT of potential....I don't think people realize it. Just capturing a sliver of the pop. of Houston is still A LOT of people. If you had Alabama, Georgia, Florida coming here, you'd increase the local fanbase. A lot of people would go just to see the big name teams. LSU and A&M alums would actually love Houston being in the conference

Also, on a tangent, I'm surprised Rice is never mentioned in PAC 12 and B1G circles....expansion is retarded

This. The difference between ATL and HOU is that Atlanta is a major hub for one conference (SEC) and a minor one for another (ACC). I don't think Houston has the same potential. As such I'd submit that the SEC should focus on an expansion target that captures more of the state as opposed to a single metro area. I don't think adding UH would help with market penetration and I'm always skeptical of the 'just need to be in a brand name conference and we'll pop' narrative. While OU would definitely address that issue, they appear pulled in multiple directions. At this point, I'm willing to give OKST the nod.

SEC WEST: OKST, A&M, MIZZOU, LSU, ARK

I think that division has the potential to generate interest in Texas, especially if Texas joins the B10 and OU heads to the PAC. Moreover, it would be the addition of a school that wouldn't have a wandering eye or resentment about being in the SEC. If a deal has to be brokered to part out the B12 and SEC isn't assured one of the top three brand in order to justify going to 16, then I think this would be the best compromise.

You think Oklahoma State is going to generate interest in Texas??

Why would LSU want to be part of that division??

(08-19-2016 05:12 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 04:55 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:35 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  Houston is an interesting animal, I lived there for 2 years and worked with as many alums and fans of Big 10 schools then I did Big 12 and SEC schools. Certainly LSU and Aggie have huge alumni counts in the greater Houston are but will always be tough for a single conference to dominate that market.

I think we don't have to dominate it, just have an equal share with all parties combined.

Agreed a split share of a huge market is better than domination of a tiny market...it is about total eye balls. There is a reason Rutgers of all athletic programs was attractive to the Big 10 and it wasn't due to athletic performance.

I think there's an argument for saturation though.

Now obviously we could never truly achieve that in a market as large as Houston, but being a dominate force there such as what we've achieved in Atlanta, I think, would pay dividends.

I'm on board with you....you start having Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Ole Miss coming here to Houston for games, I think you'll get the attention of the city...

The Texans are tops here, but having #1 Alabama come to play the Cougars would be huge and definitely garner attention

(08-19-2016 05:48 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 02:28 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Houston is a pro sports town first and foremost....

Also, I'm not sure about the Metro area statistics, but Houston is the 4th largest city in the U.S.

I live in Houston, and I don't see a Big XII or SEC stamp on this city...

I think Houston would be a great add to the SEC...I suggested a few years ago that the SEC should have added FSU and Houston for #15 and #16 and call it a done deal

Houston has A LOT of potential....I don't think people realize it. Just capturing a sliver of the pop. of Houston is still A LOT of people. If you had Alabama, Georgia, Florida coming here, you'd increase the local fanbase. A lot of people would go just to see the big name teams. LSU and A&M alums would actually love Houston being in the conference

Also, on a tangent, I'm surprised Rice is never mentioned in PAC 12 and B1G circles....expansion is retarded

This. The difference between ATL and HOU is that Atlanta is a major hub for one conference (SEC) and a minor one for another (ACC). I don't think Houston has the same potential. As such I'd submit that the SEC should focus on an expansion target that captures more of the state as opposed to a single metro area. I don't think adding UH would help with market penetration and I'm always skeptical of the 'just need to be in a brand name conference and we'll pop' narrative. While OU would definitely address that issue, they appear pulled in multiple directions. At this point, I'm willing to give OKST the nod.

SEC WEST: OKST, A&M, MIZZOU, LSU, ARK

I think that division has the potential to generate interest in Texas, especially if Texas joins the B10 and OU heads to the PAC. Moreover, it would be the addition of a school that wouldn't have a wandering eye or resentment about being in the SEC. If a deal has to be brokered to part out the B12 and SEC isn't assured one of the top three brand in order to justify going to 16, then I think this would be the best compromise.

I cannot imagine that any school would resent an SEC invite.

(08-19-2016 09:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  You think Oklahoma State is going to generate interest in Texas??

Why would LSU want to be part of that division??

If ARK and A&M can get decent attendance and ratings in Dallas, I don't see how a similar situation couldn't happen with say LSU and OKST. And the Bayou Bengals would love a division like that because it would be one they could win and they wouldn't see 'Bama or Florida on the schedule anymore.

(08-19-2016 11:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I cannot imagine that any school would resent an SEC invite.

Texas, KU and OU would.

(08-20-2016 05:01 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-19-2016 11:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I cannot imagine that any school would resent an SEC invite.

Texas, KU and OU would.

I disagree. Texas probably doesn't want to come, I buy that. I think OU and KU would be happy to be here.

You can't always go with what a handful of fans on particular message boards think. We fans tend to be demonstrative with what we think we know when in reality we have little fact to back up our position. The more knowledge on a topic we acquire, we realize that things aren't always so black and white. When you see a fan boy online spout off about "such and such school would never want to associate with those guys" then you can bank on that person not knowing what they're talking about. If nothing else, people with influence don't limit their own options. They're smarter than that. So when you see a leader express a certain position you generally notice it sounds vague, diplomatic, and short of concrete statements. That's by design.

That and regardless of what Boren would prefer or not, a decision that big will come down to what the BMDs and Trustees want. Boren's leadership has an expiration date.

If the Big 12 starts to break up I think KU will be happy to find any P5 home...with their strong hoops and AAU status they will find a home.

I do think culturally they are more of a fit with the Big 10 though (Lawrence is quite liberal) but could work in the SEC especially if Oklahoma comes along as well. OU, Mizzou, and Arkansas would all be pretty close to KU.