Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #21
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-04-2018 11:21 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I don't think regionalization is a bad thing. As I've said before, talent for all sports is regionalized to some degree which has a bearing on championships, NCAA playoff bids, and perception.

I would prefer smaller conferences, but more conferences. Something like:

PAC
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech

B1G
West: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois
East: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St

SEC
West: Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida

ACC
Atlantic: Miami, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, North Carolina St, Maryland, Penn St
Coastal: Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Big East
West: Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Louisville, Iowa St, Northwestern, Purdue
East: Notre Dame, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College

XII
West: Washington St, Oregon St, Boise St, BYU, UNLV, San Diego St
East: Colorado St, Air Force, New Mexico, Baylor, TCU, Kansas St

AAC
West: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Navy
East: Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Cincinnati, Temple, Connecticut

CUSA
West: Arkansas St, Southern Miss, UAB, Middle Tennessee St, Western Kentucky, Florida International
East: Massachusetts, Army, Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic

MWC
West: Hawaii, San Jose St, Fresno St, Nevada, Utah St, Wyoming
East: New Mexico St, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, Rice, Louisiana Tech

MAC
West: Northern Illinois, Ball St, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Toledo
East: Bowling Green St, Ohio, Miami OH, Akron, Kent St, Buffalo

SBC
West: Texas St, UL Lafayette, UL Monroe, South Alabama, Troy
East: Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, Appalachian St, Liberty

Here's my issue with most of your posts. You don't take into account the reality of the pecking order. The SEC as a conference is worth 4.5 billion in potential revenue production from its network. The Big 10 as a conference is worth 1.5 billion in potential revenue from its network. The PAC network is worth in the low millions. The LHN is worth about 15 million annually to just Texas. Oklahoma and Kansas have deals worth about 7 million a year with their T3 and everyone else in the Big 12 less. The ACC is yet to launch a network and they get 1 amount for all three tiers of rights.

The SEC's average Gross Total Revenue per school per year is 131 million. The Big 10's is 116 million. The Big 12's is 108 million but that is skewed by Texas and Oklahoma who together represent 40% of the total gross revenue of that conference. The ACC was worth 87 million per school and the PAC 89 million per school.

The attendance figures follow the same pattern: SEC 77,500 per event, B1G 66,100 per event. Big 12 60,000 per event, PAC 50,100 per event, and the ACC 49,100 per event.

So by every danged metric in the sport the SEC is First, the Big 10 second, the Big 12 third, the PAC barely 4th, and the ACC 5th. When the ACCN launches those last two spots will flip. And the ACC will be much closer to catching the Big 12 than the PAC will be to catching the ACC.

I want you to take that in and smoke it over.

There is no damned reason at all for the SEC to take Oklahoma State alone. You stick some crap team in the SEC in every one of your posts and load up the Big 10 and in this case move an SEC school to the ACC like any university president is so stupid as to trade an average of 34 million a year by leaving a stronger association for a weaker one.

What's more the disparity between regions is about to grow. The cable footprint model favored the Big 10 and SEC, but propped up the ACC and PAC and hurt the Big 12. When we start to get paid according to actual viewers which is what the streaming age is going to do, the Big 10 and SEC will still be on top, but the Big 12 will be third the ACC fourth and the PAC even a more woeful last.

So keep that in mind when you draw up your scenarios. Oklahoma could legitimately go to the Big 10 or SEC, but the SEC isn't taking Oklahoma State without OU. Instead they would go for a target of greater value. South Carolina won't be leaving the strongest economic conference in the nation for the 4th or 5th best.

I doubt that Texas heads to the PAC. The question is whether they try to rebuild the Big 12 or not.

We will all know more about the future when by 2020 we can see whether or not the ACCN helps them close the gap. If so they'll be fine. If not they won't. The PAC is a whole different matter. I just don't see a positive upside for them. When your fan base doesn't support you then you are hosed.
01-04-2018 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,342
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 48
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #22
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!
01-05-2018 04:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,114
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #23
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 04:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!

The flaw in that thinking is that you (and JR) are thinking like fans and not looking at things from the "networks" prospective.
Would the SEC want to take Oklahoma State or any other lesser school? Of course not! But the SEC is in the best position of absorb a school like Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) because of their core strength. The networks are looking to market college football, not the SEC or the B1G. In order to do that the strengths of the conferences have to be more level than in the past. The SEC does not need any more great football schools to be successful and gain attention, but the PAC does and probably the ACC too! The one problem that redistribution can not solve is the Big 12's lack of populated areas.
Now I don't blame any fan of a conference saying "we won't take them, they aren't up to our standards, or they will dilute our product", but in the grand scheme of things, if the "networks" decide it's in their best interest, and are willing to pay for it, it will happen.
01-05-2018 05:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 04:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!

The flaw in that thinking is that you (and JR) are thinking like fans and not looking at things from the "networks" prospective.
Would the SEC want to take Oklahoma State or any other lesser school? Of course not! But the SEC is in the best position of absorb a school like Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) because of their core strength. The networks are looking to market college football, not the SEC or the B1G. In order to do that the strengths of the conferences have to be more level than in the past. The SEC does not need any more great football schools to be successful and gain attention, but the PAC does and probably the ACC too! The one problem that redistribution can not solve is the Big 12's lack of populated areas.
Now I don't blame any fan of a conference saying "we won't take them, they aren't up to our standards, or they will dilute our product", but in the grand scheme of things, if the "networks" decide it's in their best interest, and are willing to pay for it, it will happen.

Sadly for you Xlance, that time is passing rapidly. Now that the market model is dying there is little need at all for Oklahoma State. The bargaining power is in actual eyeballs. The brand schools know this and the conferences do as well. And X, I've seldom thought like a fan. What I do think like is a businessman. And the dollars just aren't there for O.S.U. no matter what ESPN would pay, and since they are business men as well, I doubt they would look at it the way you are suggesting. Five years ago, quite possibly. Today, no. I seriously doubt that OSU is worth 45 million a year to the SEC or ESPN.

Now as to Dawg in Bama's remarks, I totally agree with you about Texas's publicly stated egotistical spew which is designed to make their alums feel special. And it is true that Tech under Bobby Dodd felt similarly. But that said in 2010-11 Tech wanted to know the SEC's interest in them. Then the Tech leaning lawmakers in Georgia wanted UGA to sponsor them for SEC membership.

And since '91 Texas has been in discussions with the SEC on at least 3 occasions and are rumored to be talking again. Why? Money. But Texas is always top 5 in revenue why would they be concerned about money? They are concerned about the money they generate on sports, on ticket sales, on alumni donations, and from their fans in general. And while they aren't enamored of the SEC we remain their best fit for their sports culture, not their campus culture.

Texas doesn't have a viable option with the PAC. The PAC drags their revenue down because the games would be far less accessible even with taking a block of the Big 12 with them and because the PAC makes so much less than Texas and OU that they both would actually have to give up revenue to make the move, and then spend more in travel for fewer games their fans could travel too, which means a decline in fan interest, which means a decline in donations, and a rise in the cost of doing business.

So Texas has only 3 real alternatives:

1. Stay and try to hold a Texas centered conference together. That's not generating a lot of fan interest the more they lose key brands to play to other conferences the more the Big 12 has had to grow with games the Horn fans yawn about. As a result that 100,000 plus seat stadium is seldom as full as it once was and their fans have been on record with their disapproval.

2. They could join the Big 10. But while they would make more money the accessibility of the games would almost be as tough as it would be in the PAC and what's worse is that they would be limited on who they could travel with. Then there is another issue for Texas in the B1G, their sports don't line up. Baseball and Softball would suffer. Baseball and Softball would flourish in the PAC but it would cost them an arm & leg for travel.

3. They could join the SEC. The games are more accessible, especially for the Western division, it reunites them with two of their top 3 all time rivals, and should Oklahoma come with them (as was discussed in '91) it covers all of those bases. Throw in OSU and Tech and it really checks the boxes for both schools. The money is better and the sports culture fit would be the best they could find. And, it would please ESPN who could monetize the content better in the SEC than in the PAC or Big 10 (and that's the facts X).

Yes Texas would have to backtrack a couple of decades of snobbish remarks, but they have Florida and Vanderbilt to sit in the corner with and snicker if that's what they feel they need to do.

As far as A&M fans go sure they hate Texas and are happy as clams not to have them around. But Texas is their money game and A&M is one of two money games for Texas. And under the refereeing of the SEC the two could coexist while maintaining their white hot hatred for one another. We're big enough, and already have enough hate to go around. The bottom line is that the Texas/A&M game would be almost as big of a money maker as Auburn/Alabama which is massive in national numbers every year.

So I hear what you are saying, I understand the truth in it, but I also know that both schools' administrations and A.D.'s understand the value of renewing that series. Texas called it off in a tantrum. They thought it would sabotage the Aggies move. A&M called their bluff. So now Texas lives with the fact that they have cut off their own nose to spite their face. Now the Aggie fans want them to live with that. But both campuses organized their traditions around hating each other and nothing sells their tickets like that game. A&M does a great job of filling out Kyle Field on a Saturday, but having UT back on the schedule would be a boost in interest and donations by ticket purchasing fans who more than the donors want the game back.

So Auburn and Alabama could move to the East and Texas and A&M with Oklahoma could anchor the new west with a strong set of rivalries to match those in the East.

Arkansas/Texas, Arkansas/A&M, Texas/Oklahoma, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Oklahoma/A&M, Texas/A&M, A&M/Tech, Texas/Tech, A&M/LSU and LSU vs all of them become must see TV. And with it the Mississippi schools and Missouri suddenly have a bit more relevance as well.

So ESPN essentially has two divisions (or 4) that are now each equal in value to what the SEC was worth when we were 12 schools, as far as content value goes.

So if Texas can park its attitude, everything they want (close familiar rivals), sports culture fit, ease of access for their fans, and money can be had best in the SEC. And then there are the demographic trends. The Southeast is growing and football is waning everywhere else. If the Horns want to make a move for the future of their sports, the SEC is it. What galls them the most is that they know it.

So, as much as most of us detest Texas, if we both could profit by the moves, the business of sports may make strange allies again.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 01:05 PM by JRsec.)
01-05-2018 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 617
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #25
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 04:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!

The flaw in that thinking is that you (and JR) are thinking like fans and not looking at things from the "networks" prospective.
Would the SEC want to take Oklahoma State or any other lesser school? Of course not! But the SEC is in the best position of absorb a school like Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) because of their core strength. The networks are looking to market college football, not the SEC or the B1G. In order to do that the strengths of the conferences have to be more level than in the past. The SEC does not need any more great football schools to be successful and gain attention, but the PAC does and probably the ACC too! The one problem that redistribution can not solve is the Big 12's lack of populated areas.
Now I don't blame any fan of a conference saying "we won't take them, they aren't up to our standards, or they will dilute our product", but in the grand scheme of things, if the "networks" decide it's in their best interest, and are willing to pay for it, it will happen.

Sadly for you Xlance, that time is passing rapidly. Now that the market model is dying there is little need at all for Oklahoma State. The bargaining power is in actual eyeballs. The brand schools know this and the conferences do as well. And X, I've seldom thought like a fan. What I do think like is a businessman. And the dollars just aren't there for O.S.U. no matter what ESPN would pay and since they are business men as well I doubt they would look at the way you are suggesting. Five years ago, quite possibly. Today, no. I seriously doubt that OSU is worth 45 million a year to the SEC or ESPN.

Now as to Dawg in Bama's remarks, I totally agree with you about Texas's publicly stated egotistical spew which is designed to make their alums feel special. And it is true that Tech under Bobby Dodd felt similarly. But that said in 2010-1 Tech wanted to know the SEC's interest in them. The the Tech leaning lawmakers in Georgia wanted UGA to sponsor them for SEC membership.

And since '91 Texas has been in discussions with the SEC on at least 3 occasions and are rumored to be talking again. Why? Money. But Texas is always top 5 in revenue why would they be concerned about money? They are concerned about the money they generate on sports, on ticket sales, on alumni donations, and from their fans in general. And while they aren't enamored of the SEC we remain their best fit for their sports culture, not their campus culture.

Texas doesn't have a viable option with the PAC. The PAC drags their revenue down because the games would be far less accessible even with taking a block of the Big 12 with them and because the PAC makes so much less than Texas and OU that they both would actually have to give up revenue to make the move, and then spend more in travel for fewer games their fans could travel too, which means a decline in fan interest, which means a decline in donations, and a rise in the cost of doing business.

So Texas has only 3 real alternatives:

1. Stay and try to hold a Texas centered conference together. That's not generating a lot of fan interest the more they lose key brands to play to other conferences the more the Big 12 has had to grow with games the Horn fans yawn about. As a result that 100,000 plus seat stadium is seldom as full as it once was and their fans have been on record with their disapproval.

2. They could join the Big 10. But while they would make more money the accessibility of the games would almost be as tough as it would be in the PAC and what's worse is that they would be limited on who they could travel with. Then there is another issue for Texas in the B1G, their sports don't line up. Baseball and Softball would suffer. Baseball and Softball would flourish in the PAC but it would cost them an arm & leg for travel.

3. They could join the SEC. The games are more accessible, especially for the Western division, it reunites them with two of their top 3 all time rivals, and should Oklahoma come with them (as was discussed in '91) it covers all of those bases. Throw in OSU and Tech and it really checks the boxes for both schools. The money is better and the sports culture fit would be the best they could find. And, it would please ESPN who could monetize the content better in the SEC than in the PAC or Big 10 (and that's the facts X).

Yes Texas would have to backtrack a couple of decades of snobbish remarks, but they have Florida and Vanderbilt to sit in the corner with and snicker if that's what they feel they need to do.

As far as A&M fans go sure they hate Texas and are happy as clams not to have them around. But Texas is their money game and A&M is one of two money games for Texas. And under the refereeing of the SEC the two could coexist while maintaining their white hot hatred for one another. Were big enough, and already have enough hate to go around. The bottom line is that the Texas/A&M game would be almost as big of a money maker as Auburn/Alabama which is massive in national numbers every year.

So I hear what you are saying, I understand the truth in it, but I also know that both schools' administrations and A.D.'s understand the value of renewing that series. Texas called it off in a tantrum. They thought it would sabotage the Aggies move. A&M called their bluff. So now Texas lives with the fact that they have cut off their own nose to spite their face. Now the Aggie fans want them to live with that. But both campuses organized their traditions around hating each other and nothing sells their tickets like that game. A&M does a great job of filling out Kyle Field on a Saturday, but having UT back on the schedule would be a boost in interest and donations by ticket purchasing fans who more than the donors want the game back.

So Auburn and Alabama could move to the East and Texas and A&M with Oklahoma could anchor the new west with a strong set of rivalries to match those in the East.

Arkansas/Texas, Arkansas/A&M, Texas/Oklahoma, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Oklahoma/A&M, Texas/A&M, A&M/Tech, Texas/Tech, A&M/LSU and LSU vs all of them become must see TV. And with it the Mississippi schools and Missouri suddenly have a bit more relevance as well.

So ESPN essentially has two divisions (or 4) that are now equal in value to what the SEC was worth when we were 12 schools, as far as content value goes.

So if Texas can park its attitude, everything they want (close familiar rivals), sports culture fit, ease of access for their fans, and money can be had best in the SEC. And then there are the demographic trends. The Southeast is growing and football is waning everywhere else. If the Horns want to make a move for the future of their sports, the SEC is it. What galls them the most is that they know it.

So, as much as most of us detest Texas, if we both could profit by the moves, the business of sports may make strange allies again.

The SEC seems to have the most to gain without lowering its standards or being geographically absurd. The XII and ACC jewel programs are contiguous or within the SEC's borders. I'm sure this isn't lost on the other conferences. My question is at what point do those other conferences say "forget our standards and geography, we need to compete in revenue and on the field/court"?
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 12:02 PM by BePcr07.)
01-05-2018 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 12:02 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 04:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!

The flaw in that thinking is that you (and JR) are thinking like fans and not looking at things from the "networks" prospective.
Would the SEC want to take Oklahoma State or any other lesser school? Of course not! But the SEC is in the best position of absorb a school like Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) because of their core strength. The networks are looking to market college football, not the SEC or the B1G. In order to do that the strengths of the conferences have to be more level than in the past. The SEC does not need any more great football schools to be successful and gain attention, but the PAC does and probably the ACC too! The one problem that redistribution can not solve is the Big 12's lack of populated areas.
Now I don't blame any fan of a conference saying "we won't take them, they aren't up to our standards, or they will dilute our product", but in the grand scheme of things, if the "networks" decide it's in their best interest, and are willing to pay for it, it will happen.

Sadly for you Xlance, that time is passing rapidly. Now that the market model is dying there is little need at all for Oklahoma State. The bargaining power is in actual eyeballs. The brand schools know this and the conferences do as well. And X, I've seldom thought like a fan. What I do think like is a businessman. And the dollars just aren't there for O.S.U. no matter what ESPN would pay and since they are business men as well I doubt they would look at the way you are suggesting. Five years ago, quite possibly. Today, no. I seriously doubt that OSU is worth 45 million a year to the SEC or ESPN.

Now as to Dawg in Bama's remarks, I totally agree with you about Texas's publicly stated egotistical spew which is designed to make their alums feel special. And it is true that Tech under Bobby Dodd felt similarly. But that said in 2010-1 Tech wanted to know the SEC's interest in them. The the Tech leaning lawmakers in Georgia wanted UGA to sponsor them for SEC membership.

And since '91 Texas has been in discussions with the SEC on at least 3 occasions and are rumored to be talking again. Why? Money. But Texas is always top 5 in revenue why would they be concerned about money? They are concerned about the money they generate on sports, on ticket sales, on alumni donations, and from their fans in general. And while they aren't enamored of the SEC we remain their best fit for their sports culture, not their campus culture.

Texas doesn't have a viable option with the PAC. The PAC drags their revenue down because the games would be far less accessible even with taking a block of the Big 12 with them and because the PAC makes so much less than Texas and OU that they both would actually have to give up revenue to make the move, and then spend more in travel for fewer games their fans could travel too, which means a decline in fan interest, which means a decline in donations, and a rise in the cost of doing business.

So Texas has only 3 real alternatives:

1. Stay and try to hold a Texas centered conference together. That's not generating a lot of fan interest the more they lose key brands to play to other conferences the more the Big 12 has had to grow with games the Horn fans yawn about. As a result that 100,000 plus seat stadium is seldom as full as it once was and their fans have been on record with their disapproval.

2. They could join the Big 10. But while they would make more money the accessibility of the games would almost be as tough as it would be in the PAC and what's worse is that they would be limited on who they could travel with. Then there is another issue for Texas in the B1G, their sports don't line up. Baseball and Softball would suffer. Baseball and Softball would flourish in the PAC but it would cost them an arm & leg for travel.

3. They could join the SEC. The games are more accessible, especially for the Western division, it reunites them with two of their top 3 all time rivals, and should Oklahoma come with them (as was discussed in '91) it covers all of those bases. Throw in OSU and Tech and it really checks the boxes for both schools. The money is better and the sports culture fit would be the best they could find. And, it would please ESPN who could monetize the content better in the SEC than in the PAC or Big 10 (and that's the facts X).

Yes Texas would have to backtrack a couple of decades of snobbish remarks, but they have Florida and Vanderbilt to sit in the corner with and snicker if that's what they feel they need to do.

As far as A&M fans go sure they hate Texas and are happy as clams not to have them around. But Texas is their money game and A&M is one of two money games for Texas. And under the refereeing of the SEC the two could coexist while maintaining their white hot hatred for one another. Were big enough, and already have enough hate to go around. The bottom line is that the Texas/A&M game would be almost as big of a money maker as Auburn/Alabama which is massive in national numbers every year.

So I hear what you are saying, I understand the truth in it, but I also know that both schools' administrations and A.D.'s understand the value of renewing that series. Texas called it off in a tantrum. They thought it would sabotage the Aggies move. A&M called their bluff. So now Texas lives with the fact that they have cut off their own nose to spite their face. Now the Aggie fans want them to live with that. But both campuses organized their traditions around hating each other and nothing sells their tickets like that game. A&M does a great job of filling out Kyle Field on a Saturday, but having UT back on the schedule would be a boost in interest and donations by ticket purchasing fans who more than the donors want the game back.

So Auburn and Alabama could move to the East and Texas and A&M with Oklahoma could anchor the new west with a strong set of rivalries to match those in the East.

Arkansas/Texas, Arkansas/A&M, Texas/Oklahoma, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Oklahoma/A&M, Texas/A&M, A&M/Tech, Texas/Tech, A&M/LSU and LSU vs all of them become must see TV. And with it the Mississippi schools and Missouri suddenly have a bit more relevance as well.

So ESPN essentially has two divisions (or 4) that are now equal in value to what the SEC was worth when we were 12 schools, as far as content value goes.

So if Texas can park its attitude, everything they want (close familiar rivals), sports culture fit, ease of access for their fans, and money can be had best in the SEC. And then there are the demographic trends. The Southeast is growing and football is waning everywhere else. If the Horns want to make a move for the future of their sports, the SEC is it. What galls them the most is that they know it.

So, as much as most of us detest Texas, if we both could profit by the moves, the business of sports may make strange allies again.

The SEC seems to have the most to gain without lowering its standards or being geographically absurd. The XII and ACC jewel programs are contiguous or within the SEC's borders. I'm sure this isn't lost on the other conferences. My question is at what point do those other conferences say "forget our standards and geography, we need to compete in revenue and on the field/court"?

An alliance between the Big 10 and PAC could be easily arranged once the pressure was on and they had to lay aside petty control issues. The question is would that association be worth it to Texas and Oklahoma?

No doubt the ACC/SEC already has familial ties since we were both under one roof in the old Southern Conference. But Texas and Oklahoma still would be facing the extra travel expenses, the long expensive flights for fans, and the nightmare of minor sports by joining that association. So geography, logistics, sports culture fit, and revenue still say the SEC is the more likely landing spot.

Kansas could flip either way and be fine. Oklahoma could do it too but it would come with some downside. Texas is a different animal. And what Texas wants to do and what is best for them are often two different things. But Texas is a long way from Iowa and has always complained about the games in Ames. I just don't see them doing the Northeast thing with Big 10 East games and I don't see them in Wisconsin or Minnesota, or Chicago for that matter.

And make no mistake the SEC has been carefully crafting as enticing a entourage as they could for the Horns. A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., and even Missouri if added to Tech, and especially if added to Oklahoma would be danged hard for Texas to leave as a setup.

As far as competing for revenue goes, the SEC is at the top by an average of 16 million per school per year over the Big 10, but that's because we average 11,500 more per game in attendance than they do, and because our ticket prices and donations for tickets are higher. TV money is just about 1/5th to 1/4th of that total. And our travel expense is less so we have lower overhead. I don't know what you do about that.

But now that content is set up to be the primary driving force in the value of the media contracts nobody has the content like the SEC. Is Texas or Oklahoma worth more in the Big 10, the PAC, the ACC, or the SEC? The answer is the SEC. Second would be the Big 10. The PAC and ACC are too remote in content value to be in the running. So what I'm saying to you is that thanks to streaming advertisers are going to pay for actual eyeballs on an event, and not for a school simply being in a large state. That one factor is going to make balancing the conferences more difficult than ever.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 01:21 PM by JRsec.)
01-05-2018 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,114
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #27
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
You're wrong JR. The market model is dead only when ESPN says it's dead.







and as long as the SECN contract is in force the market model will live on in some form or fashion.

You are correct about Texas and Oklahoma being a better fit for the SEC than anywhere else except for leading their own conference which we know with the schools that are available that it won't work financially.
The same holds true for a good portion of the ACC being a better fit for the B1G.
Would ESPN sell off the ACCN to the B1G/FOX in exchange for complete control in the rest of the country?
That would create two leagues with 30-34 schools.
The ACC plus the B1G and add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Notre Dame for 33.
The SEC plus the PAC (minus Colorado) adding West Virginia, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU for 32 (you could add BYU to get to 33, too).
01-05-2018 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  You're wrong JR. The market model is dead only when ESPN says it's dead.







and as long as the SECN contract is in force the market model will live on in some form or fashion.

You are correct about Texas and Oklahoma being a better fit for the SEC than anywhere else except for leading their own conference which we know with the schools that are available that it won't work financially.
The same holds true for a good portion of the ACC being a better fit for the B1G.
Would ESPN sell off the ACCN to the B1G/FOX in exchange for complete control in the rest of the country?
That would create two leagues with 30-34 schools.
The ACC plus the B1G and add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Notre Dame for 33.
The SEC plus the PAC (minus Colorado) adding West Virginia, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU for 32 (you could add BYU to get to 33, too).

There's some kind of weird schadenfreude going on in that post.

But it's not happening.

If the Big 10 ever takes ACC schools it will be the Northeastern ones. But most likely the PAC stays at 12. The Big 10 adds two of Kanas, Iowa State or UConn, the SEC picks up Texa-homa, and the ACC adds West Virginia and N.D. in full.

The we have 62 P schools. PAC:12, B1G: 16, ACC: 16, SEC: 18.

The rest of the Big 12 gets absorbed into the AAC or a Western G5 conference.

Why else would ESPN be willing to wait until 2025? They don't want to have to pay all of the Big 12 schools P5 wages.

The only alternative strategy that might one day emerge would be to send Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., N.D., Virginia, Duke and North Carolina to the Big 10 to maximize basketball content value while sending Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC for football content value. But that's decades off while there is still a breath in the football lungs in the different regions of the nation. But as that breath dies, I think you will see a concentration in the Southeast and Southwest to keep the sport going.

What I hear most from you Xlance is a pining for the more familial days of the 8 school ACC.

Virginia, Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest, Clemson, & South Carolina. I can see you still adding Georgia Tech for 9 and Virginia Tech for 10 but that's about what you would love to have. The Northeastern schools don't fit culturally with your core anymore than Florida State and Miami do. And then there is Louisville who crashes the party like no other.

So most of your posts come back to this same theme with some variation of we will self destruct in the Big 10 before we ever concede that the SEC was right in the reasons they left the Southern Conference.

That's fine. And I can identify and accept that. But that's not what ESPN wanted was it? They betrayed the ACC core identity to profit from your product on the cheap and added so many different types of schools that your identity is hard to recognize most days.

I really think you would be happier to lop off the Northern schools, let Florida State, Louisville and Miami come to the SEC, and take Kentucky, South Carolina and Vanderbilt in exchange.

Then you could still have your 12 with 2 divisions.

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina

Maryland, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

Is that ACC Nirvana?

Then more in line with what Spurrier suggested the SEC would have:

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Louisville, Miami, Tennessee

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

So if we then picked up Texas and Oklahoma then Alabama would slide East and the conference would be set.

Now I could live with that.
01-05-2018 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,114
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #29
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  You're wrong JR. The market model is dead only when ESPN says it's dead.







and as long as the SECN contract is in force the market model will live on in some form or fashion.

You are correct about Texas and Oklahoma being a better fit for the SEC than anywhere else except for leading their own conference which we know with the schools that are available that it won't work financially.
The same holds true for a good portion of the ACC being a better fit for the B1G.
Would ESPN sell off the ACCN to the B1G/FOX in exchange for complete control in the rest of the country?
That would create two leagues with 30-34 schools.
The ACC plus the B1G and add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Notre Dame for 33.
The SEC plus the PAC (minus Colorado) adding West Virginia, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU for 32 (you could add BYU to get to 33, too).

There's some kind of weird schadenfreude going on in that post.

But it's not happening.

If the Big 10 ever takes ACC schools it will be the Northeastern ones.

The we have 62 P schools. PAC:12, B1G: 16, ACC: 16, SEC: 18.

The rest of the Big 12 gets absorbed into the AAC or a Western G5 conference.

Why else would ESPN be willing to wait until 2025? They don't want to have to pay all of the Big 12 schools P5 wages.



The only alternative strategy that might one day emerge would be to send Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., N.D., Virginia, Duke and North Carolina to the Big 10 to maximize basketball content value while sending Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC for football content value. But that's decades off while there is still a breath in the football lungs in the different regions of the nation. But as that breath dies, I think you will see a concentration in the Southeast and Southwest to keep the sport going.

What I hear most from you Xlance is a pining for the more familial days of the 8 school ACC.

Virginia, Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest, Clemson, & South Carolina. I can see you still adding Georgia Tech for 9 and Virginia Tech for 10 but that's about what you would love to have. The Northeastern schools don't fit culturally with your core anymore than Florida State and Miami do. And then there is Louisville who crashes the party like no other.

So most of your posts come back to this same theme with some variation of we will self destruct in the Big 10 before we ever concede that the SEC was right in the reasons they left the Southern Conference.

That's fine. And I can identify and accept that. But that's not what ESPN wanted was it? They betrayed the ACC core identity to profit from your product on the cheap and added so many different types of schools that your identity is hard to recognize most days.

I really think you would be happier to lop off the Northern schools, let Florida State, Louisville and Miami come to the SEC, and take Kentucky, South Carolina and Vanderbilt in exchange.

Then you could still have your 12 with 2 divisions.

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina

Maryland, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

Is that ACC Nirvana?

Then more in line with what Spurrier suggested the SEC would have:

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Louisville, Miami, Tennessee

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

So if we then picked up Texas and Oklahoma then Alabama would slide East and the conference would be set.

Now I could live with that.

So could I.
And if the B1G could cobble together a group of 28 on the other side then the P4 would have contracted to a manageable number (56) for the next 20 years or so.
It's maybe the only scenario where the B1G would actually consider adding West Virginia for that 28 team total, and they could finally capture the "white whale" too. Boston College, Rutgers, Kansas State, Washington State, and Oregon State are out, as well as TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.
Add Kansas and Nebraska with the remaining PAC teams for 12 and the others for 16. So you have the B1G and SEC at 16 and the ACC and PAC at 12. Not bad JR.
****
But my point was that we can never truly get to a content model as long as the SECN and ACCN as well as the Big Ten Networks exist in their current form (the PAC network just does not count). You're still paying for the cannon fodder in your own conference.
****
The only hitch in this approach: But most likely the PAC stays at 12. The Big 10 adds two of Kanas, Iowa State or UConn, the SEC picks up Texa-homa, and the ACC adds West Virginia and N.D. in full. would be IF the B1G were to end up with Kansas and Oklahoma (instead of Iowa State) or insist on Missouri as a ransom to leave Oklahoma alone.
01-05-2018 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,459
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 728
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: How to keep college football from becoming a regional sport?
(01-05-2018 04:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2018 02:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  You're wrong JR. The market model is dead only when ESPN says it's dead.







and as long as the SECN contract is in force the market model will live on in some form or fashion.

You are correct about Texas and Oklahoma being a better fit for the SEC than anywhere else except for leading their own conference which we know with the schools that are available that it won't work financially.
The same holds true for a good portion of the ACC being a better fit for the B1G.
Would ESPN sell off the ACCN to the B1G/FOX in exchange for complete control in the rest of the country?
That would create two leagues with 30-34 schools.
The ACC plus the B1G and add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Notre Dame for 33.
The SEC plus the PAC (minus Colorado) adding West Virginia, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU for 32 (you could add BYU to get to 33, too).

There's some kind of weird schadenfreude going on in that post.

But it's not happening.

If the Big 10 ever takes ACC schools it will be the Northeastern ones.

The we have 62 P schools. PAC:12, B1G: 16, ACC: 16, SEC: 18.

The rest of the Big 12 gets absorbed into the AAC or a Western G5 conference.

Why else would ESPN be willing to wait until 2025? They don't want to have to pay all of the Big 12 schools P5 wages.



The only alternative strategy that might one day emerge would be to send Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., N.D., Virginia, Duke and North Carolina to the Big 10 to maximize basketball content value while sending Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC for football content value. But that's decades off while there is still a breath in the football lungs in the different regions of the nation. But as that breath dies, I think you will see a concentration in the Southeast and Southwest to keep the sport going.

What I hear most from you Xlance is a pining for the more familial days of the 8 school ACC.

Virginia, Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest, Clemson, & South Carolina. I can see you still adding Georgia Tech for 9 and Virginia Tech for 10 but that's about what you would love to have. The Northeastern schools don't fit culturally with your core anymore than Florida State and Miami do. And then there is Louisville who crashes the party like no other.

So most of your posts come back to this same theme with some variation of we will self destruct in the Big 10 before we ever concede that the SEC was right in the reasons they left the Southern Conference.

That's fine. And I can identify and accept that. But that's not what ESPN wanted was it? They betrayed the ACC core identity to profit from your product on the cheap and added so many different types of schools that your identity is hard to recognize most days.

I really think you would be happier to lop off the Northern schools, let Florida State, Louisville and Miami come to the SEC, and take Kentucky, South Carolina and Vanderbilt in exchange.

Then you could still have your 12 with 2 divisions.

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina

Maryland, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

Is that ACC Nirvana?

Then more in line with what Spurrier suggested the SEC would have:

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Louisville, Miami, Tennessee

Alabama, Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

So if we then picked up Texas and Oklahoma then Alabama would slide East and the conference would be set.

Now I could live with that.

So could I.
And if the B1G could cobble together a group of 28 on the other side then the P4 would have contracted to a manageable number (56) for the next 20 years or so.
It's maybe the only scenario where the B1G would actually consider adding West Virginia for that 28 team total, and they could finally capture the "white whale" too. Boston College, Rutgers, Kansas State, Washington State, and Oregon State are out, as well as TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.
Add Kansas and Nebraska with the remaining PAC teams for 12 and the others for 16. So you have the B1G and SEC at 16 and the ACC and PAC at 12. Not bad JR.
****
But my point was that we can never truly get to a content model as long as the SECN and ACCN as well as the Big Ten Networks exist in their current form (the PAC network just does not count). You're still paying for the cannon fodder in your own conference.
****
The only hitch in this approach: But most likely the PAC stays at 12. The Big 10 adds two of Kanas, Iowa State or UConn, the SEC picks up Texa-homa, and the ACC adds West Virginia and N.D. in full. would be IF the B1G were to end up with Kansas and Oklahoma (instead of Iowa State) or insist on Missouri as a ransom to leave Oklahoma alone.

The market mode for T3 rights? Yeah I hope that one lasts otherwise we'll all be making less. But that's the minority of the rights. The T1 and T2 revenue will be determined by eyeballs.

So the PAC stays at 12, the ACC moves to 12. The SEC and Big 10 either to 16 or 18 depending upon the circumstances.

If Texas and OU stonewall because of Tech and OSU we might still have to head to 18.

At that point if Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State and Connecticut become the Big 10's aim then so be it if the schools involved agree.

Then the SEC can consider T.C.U., West Virginia, or some other F.O.T. (friend of Texas).

But I agree that Texas and OU to 16 is the best.

The 2 to take the Big 10 to 16: Notre Dame & Kansas
The 4 to take the Big 10 to 18: Notre Dame, Kansas, Iowa State, Pitt/Syracuse for Maryland

The 2 to take the SEC to 16: Oklahoma & Texas
The 4 to take the SEC to 18: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

So the P4 at 56:

B1G:

Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska

PAC:

California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah

*************************************************************

SEC:

Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami

Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, Tennessee

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M


ACC:

Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina

Maryland, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018 05:10 PM by JRsec.)
01-05-2018 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.