(12-17-2016 01:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote: Why do we think copying the Big 12s failure of "let's have a bunch of redundant unnecessary teams that all feed off the same recruiting market" is a great idea? A big part of the B1G and SEC success is NOT doing this and limiting the number of teams per state to one in modern expansion.
OU and Kansas are the only B12 teams that will enhance the SEC (UT is cancer that will kill it) and frankly neither of them is really interested.
It's not necessarily the sexiest choice but our future is bringing in a NC and a VA team. Adding another Florida's worth of population to our content viewing footprint is the ONLY expansion option that makes financial sense
10th, the only additions from the ACC that make sense for us now are Florida State and Clemson. The market philosophy is dead, finished, obsolete, and gone for good! Virginia Tech is middling at best and no school from North Carolina is worth a damn. Plus you are talking about schools that can't put 70,000 in a stadium. Think about that when the SEC averages 77,000 and that's with Missouri being down 20% this year.
Branding and content value will drive all models moving forward because no matter what technology does the rest of the nation wants to watch big names play, especially big names with full venues, and solid records. The pinned thread at the top, while old, is still 100% applicable. In reality the SEC only has 4 candidates that can add to our bottom line. In order they are Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson.
I agree that the Horns are poison, but in reality ESPN will crap a brick if they don't get to keep them. So in all likelihood they wind up either in the SEC or ACC unless ESPN uses them to land a larger percentage of the PAC, where they have nothing but a lease, or the Big 10.
I think the best two additions for the SEC would be Oklahoma and Florida State period. What's the likelihood of that?
Nobody is leaving the ACC. They are here to stay. They may one day form a bargaining arrangement or a network arrangement with the SEC but the two of them are going to remain entities identified by their conference brand whether we conduct business as one or not.
The Big 12 is the dead man walking here so you tell me just where we will most likely get additions? If that is the case and you don't want Texas then who is it that we will likely go after???
Oklahoma doesn't want any other conference and neither does Texas, but their time will run out in 7 years. At least 1 of them, if not both, will be forced to find new homes. There is only 1 conference that can offer them a top pay day, geographically friendly distances to travel, and old rivals to play and it sure as hell isn't the big frigging 10 or the putrid PAC.
So whether the SEC hankers for them or not, ESPN will place them where they can profit the most.
I imagine in the end the best the SEC can do for A&M is to keep you out of division, that if the others do come our way, they would be in.
To put the record straight here my expansion choices in '92 included Florida State. We were foolish not to pick up a second Florida school. The ACC without either Miami or Florida State would be at a severe recruiting disadvantage in a state they now share recruiting success with us 50/50 in most years. I sure don't think the SEC will make that mistake in Texas!
As an old line SEC guy, I didn't want really want westward expansion at all. I would much rather have kept to schools in the Southeast within driving distance. South Carolina was fine. If we had gotten N.C. State then that was doable, but not a great add. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or Miami would have served us better now than anyone we've added other than your Aggies.
Adding the Aggies was great for L.S.U. and Arkansas, and temporarily great for the SECN (of which as a conference we initially had an option to own a %). Slive wisely declined. The conference networks as we know them now will be dead in less than a decade. ESPN will have to honor our contract until 2031 so we'll be fine that way or with a more profitable new model if one presents itself.
All the market model ever was was a ruse to get key states to split up their product so that various regions of the country could be drawn into play with the split allegiances, and more importantly to keep conferences from having the leverage of totally owning Florida, Georgia, and as initially planned, Virginia or North Carolina. it is
NOT the profitable, or smart way to move forward continuing to think 1 school 1 state gives you anything. The school you have will have to compellingly move the national audience if having that one school is going to give any kind of an audience other than their local one. There will be no more cable pay rates based on subscriptions to boost the likes of an N.C. State or Virginia.
For national audience reasons, which is where the ad money is regardless of the delivery model, having two schools in large states is a major insurance policy for both keeping a large local market and for doubling down on one of those schools having a compelling season if the other sucks.
Florida being down is hurting the SEC. When the Aggies fade at the end of the season our numbers dip in Texas. At least if we had another DFW school those numbers would be supported in Texas. We screwed the pooch in Florida by listening to ESPN in '92. We are now aware of the cost of that blunder. It won't happen again.
So ponder these things and then remind yourself that a crappy team in North Carolina or Virginia that can't put 50,000 butts in the seats, let alone 77,000, and can't field a nationally relevant product in football, isn't worth doodly squat in terms of advertising for national football market. Right about now I'm so happy we don't have N.C. State and Virginia Tech that words can't describe my relief.
The Big 10 quietly knows they screwed up with Rutgers and Maryland. At least truly the ACC can say that other than as an academic institution they gained in product when the Terps left. If Mizzou gets over their recent political garbage and gets back on track of at least being solidly competitive we'll be fine.
Kansas can prop up our basketball, which is atrocious, but they will never really pay their way in. They would be at least a respite on the West Division's school's schedules in the Fall.
So, while I hate the Horns as well, and would rather expand with relevant brands in the Southeast, the reality remains there are only 4 schools that really could add to our bottom line, and while the reasons they would have changed since 2012, the ability to land them favors those to the West.