CSNbbs

Full Version: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(04-10-2017 02:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2017 02:04 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Since February we have some new information on conference statistics. The financial information is as current as we have but is still for the 2015-6 season. The attendance figures are for Fall of 2016.

Conference MEAN Gross Revenue:

1. SEC: $121,240,504
2. B1G: $108,269,417 ($12,971,087 behind the SEC)
3. B12: $102,170,537 ( $6,098,880 behind the B1G & $19,069,967 behind the SEC)
4. PAC: $ 89,239,736 ($12,930,801 behind the B12 & $32,000,768 behind the SEC)
5. ACC: $ 87,034,205 ( $2,205,531 behind the PAC & $34,206,299 behind the SEC)


Conference MEAN Attendance for Football:

1. SEC: 77,565
2. B1G: 66,162 (11,403 behind the SEC)
3. B12: 57,238 ( 8,924 behind the B1G & 20,327 behind the SEC)
4. PAC: 50,112 ( 7,126 behind the B12 & 27,453 behind the SEC)
5. ACC: 49,827 ( 285 behind the PAC & 27,738 behind the SEC)

Of all of the Big 12 Schools only Texas and Oklahoma add to the SEC MEAN Gross Revenue and the SEC MEAN Attendance figures. But they add enough that they could cover 2 other additions if required and still show an increase in the SEC MEAN Gross Revenue and only a slight decline in the SEC MEAN Attendance figures.

So this means that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State is viable.
Or, Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia is viable
Or, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia may be viable. But, for the latter the SEC Mean Attendance would take a large hit. Kansas State only averaged 25,000 in attendance for football last season. This will be a major albatross around their necks should they seek a conference home in either the B1G or SEC.

Would a move to the SEC increase Kansas attendance though? Bringing in OK gives us OK-Alabama, OK-Texas A&M, OK-Auburn, OK-LSU, etc, which I would think would be huge games, but Kansas-Alabama, Kansas-Texas A&M, etc, doesn't exactly scream much-watch. On the other hand, Kansas-Missouri would.

Also, just like other schools, how much of this is winning related?
Taking their Orange Bowl season, I see:
vs. Central Michigan 46,815
vs. SE Louisiana 43,914
vs. Toledo 48,112
vs. Baylor 43,556
vs. Nebraska 51,910
vs. Iowa State 51,050
vs. Missouri 80,537 (Arrowhead)

Similar numbers in 2008, 2009, and only slightly lower numbers in 2010, 2011, 2012, then another dip in 2013 and a heavier dip in 2014. The painful numbers hit in 2015 (25,910 vs. 3 Baylor and 26,677 vs. 14 OK).

Of course the school had to fire Mangino, and Kansas isn't a destination school, but seems like they are only a good coaching hire away from having solid attendance, if not spectacular or SEC level. A decent G5 coach might want a chance and take the first P5 job, or perhaps someone who doesn't mind being the number 2 guy behind Self and who can thrive outside of the limelight?

Even in the 40's Kansas (who 81st nationally in attendance last year) would only climb into 70's. I just don't see that getting her done. Those empty seats are a revenue drain on a conference that frequently sells out visiting allotments. As a basketball brand they are terrific! But basketball is only 15% of the Gross Revenue.
Well there may be a new school of thought out there now that the SECN is in Mexico. Should the PAC become a FOX product the idea is that the old Big 8 schools remaining in the Big 12 would head in the direction of a PAC / Big 10 alliance and the old schools in the Big 12 that were formerly of the SWC would head to the ESPN sponsored SEC / ACC alliance, but specifically to the SEC. Depending on how things break WVU could find itself in either the SEC or ACC.

The winner of the Rose Bowl (B1G champ vs PAC champ) heads to the NCG.
The winner of the Sugar Bowl (SEC champ vs ACC champ) heads to the NCG.

It's an interesting concept since the divide was formerly a natural one. It keeps Texas in a Texas centered division and with schools it plays annually and probably reintroduces Arkansas and A&M into that division.

Anyway it's different, simple, and somewhat more logical than most attempts at a division of the Big 12.
(04-25-2017 11:05 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Well there may be a new school of thought out there now that the SECN is in Mexico. Should the PAC become a FOX product the idea is that the old Big 8 schools remaining in the Big 12 would head in the direction of a PAC / Big 10 alliance and the old schools in the Big 12 that were formerly of the SWC would head to the ESPN sponsored SEC / ACC alliance, but specifically to the SEC. Depending on how things break WVU could find itself in either the SEC or ACC.

The winner of the Rose Bowl (B1G champ vs PAC champ) heads to the NCG.
The winner of the Sugar Bowl (SEC champ vs ACC champ) heads to the NCG.

It's an interesting concept since the divide was formerly a natural one. It keeps Texas in a Texas centered division and with schools it plays annually and probably reintroduces Arkansas and A&M into that division.

Anyway it's different, simple, and somewhat more logical than most attempts at a division of the Big 12.

I like this. Maybe the conferences divide in 4 x 16. Missouri shifts North and TCU heads East. I kept the current ACC divisional format with the addition of 2 schools.

FOX LEAGUE

PAC

West: Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
East: Arizona, Arizona St, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St

B1G

West: Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers

ESPN LEAGUE

ACC

Atlantic: Boston College, Clemson, Florida St, Louisville, North Carolina St, Syracuse, Wake Forest, TCU
Coastal: Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami

SEC

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St
East: Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

This could trigger renegotiations of the New Year's Six bowls.

Championship: Bid by Cities
Semifinal: Rose Bowl - B1G Champion vs. PAC Champion
Semifinal: Sugar Bowl - SEC Champion vs. ACC Champion
Orange Bowl: ACC #2 vs. B1G #2
Fiesta Bowl: PAC #2 vs. SEC #2
Cotton Bowl: SEC #3 vs. B1G #3
Peach Bowl: ACC #3 vs. PAC #3

Any independent or non-power school ranked higher in the CFP poll than a power school may be selected for a New Year's Six bowl. If the school is ranked in the top 4, it must be selected for the playoff which will cascade down accordingly. If the school is not ranked in the top 4, but is ranked higher than #1-3 in a power conference, then it must be selected for a New Year's Six bowl. This will be done on a 1-by-1 basis, meaning that if #12 Houston and #13 Boise St are ranked higher than #14 Miami (ACC #3) (who happens to be the lowest ranked power #1-3) then only Houston would get the spot. If #11 Houston and #12 Boise St are ranked higher than #13 Miami (#3 ACC) and #14 Washington (#3 PAC) (both are the lowest power #1-3) then Houston and Boise St would get those spots.

Top 14 with bowls:

1. Alabama
2. Ohio St
3. USC
4. Florida St
5. Clemson
6. Oklahoma
7. Michigan
8. LSU
9. Texas A&M
10. Wisconsin
11. Houston
12. Boise St
13. Miami
14. Washington

Rose Bowl: Ohio St vs. USC
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs. Florida St
Orange Bowl: Clemson vs. Michigan
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. LSU
Cotton Bowl: Texas A&M vs. Wisconsin
Peach Bowl: Houston vs. Boise St
Brett McMurphy @Brett_McMurphy

Including 3rd tier rights, top Big 12 schools in media rights revenue past year: Texas $49.8 million, OU $40.8M, KU $39.8M, WVU $37.8M
5:28 PM · Jun 2, 2017

I would have to say the SEC's B12 shopping list has to be rather similar.


For reference:


Brett McMurphy @Brett_McMurphy
Big 12 will distribute $34.8 million per school, commish Bob Bowlsby announces. About a 15 percent increase from last season
11:48 AM · Jun 2, 2017
(06-02-2017 06:06 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Brett McMurphy @Brett_McMurphy

Including 3rd tier rights, top Big 12 schools in media rights revenue past year: Texas $49.8 million, OU $40.8M, KU $39.8M, WVU $37.8M
5:28 PM · Jun 2, 2017

I would have to say the SEC's B12 shopping list has to be rather similar.


For reference:


Brett McMurphy @Brett_McMurphy
Big 12 will distribute $34.8 million per school, commish Bob Bowlsby announces. About a 15 percent increase from last season
11:48 AM · Jun 2, 2017

Well the SEC is projected to payout between 43-44 million at the close of this year. With the bump that any of them would bring to the conference T1 with CBS, and the T2 with ESPN plus the SECN we are finally in the range where even Texas could move without sustaining a loss. I think that will be key moving forward.
ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.
(06-06-2017 08:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.

We want OU and UT. Nothing has changed since '91. Those are the two most valuable brands left on the table outside of Notre Dame being in between them. OU is pushing the B1G buttons to try to pry a bid out of the SEC for OSU. If Texas wants in (especially if OU is coming) we need a 4th. We have A&M so we won't agree to Tech. I think the compromise is to keep OU and KU and UT together and with those three we agree to OSU.

Those are our 4.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That's concise. It gives us three top brands two of which are AAU. And it gives us at least two games in Dallas a year because OSU would probably have to agree to play one there.

West Virginia becomes an all around sports addition like Louisville for the ACC. Notre Dame going all in is the add they need. Cincinnati gives them that and Ohio as a market. Then they can take Connecticut off the table and the B1G has nothing with which to expand further East.

Those are the best moves.

The PAC needs markets and Texas Tech and T.C.U. will be hard to resist. If Baylor loses voting privileges 7 is all it would take to disband. That's 7.
(06-06-2017 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.

We want OU and UT. Nothing has changed since '91. Those are the two most valuable brands left on the table outside of Notre Dame being in between them. OU is pushing the B1G buttons to try to pry a bid out of the SEC for OSU. If Texas wants in (especially if OU is coming) we need a 4th. We have A&M so we won't agree to Tech. I think the compromise is to keep OU and KU and UT together and with those three we agree to OSU.

Those are our 4.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That's concise. It gives us three top brands two of which are AAU. And it gives us at least two games in Dallas a year because OSU would probably have to agree to play one there.

West Virginia becomes an all around sports addition like Louisville for the ACC. Notre Dame going all in is the add they need. Cincinnati gives them that and Ohio as a market. Then they can take Connecticut off the table and the B1G has nothing with which to expand further East.

Those are the best moves.

The PAC needs markets and Texas Tech and T.C.U. will be hard to resist. If Baylor loses voting privileges 7 is all it would take to disband. That's 7.

Best move for the SEC perhaps. With Texas & Oklahoma in the SEC then the B1G would turn all of their attention to the ACC. This would likely lead to the B1G encroaching upon SEC territory. Realignment would continue for another decade or perhaps longer. As the battle would ensue over FSU & Clemson, the B1G would pick up NC, Duke, Virginia & GT. Should the B1G then also pick up ND they then could look west to the PAC & dwarf the SEC even with FSU & Clemson. What would an arms race to a P2 do to college football in this Armageddon scenario? Sports & entertainment needs some sort of competitive balance to keep a high level of interest. Look at what has happened to wrestling since Vince has bought up all of his competitors. Just my fear of the direction that football is headed in. The more exclusive something becomes the smaller the audience becomes. The more brand vs brand matchups you have the more commonplace they become & they lose their luster. The extraordinary becomes ordinary. Over dramatic?
(06-07-2017 10:41 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.

We want OU and UT. Nothing has changed since '91. Those are the two most valuable brands left on the table outside of Notre Dame being in between them. OU is pushing the B1G buttons to try to pry a bid out of the SEC for OSU. If Texas wants in (especially if OU is coming) we need a 4th. We have A&M so we won't agree to Tech. I think the compromise is to keep OU and KU and UT together and with those three we agree to OSU.

Those are our 4.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That's concise. It gives us three top brands two of which are AAU. And it gives us at least two games in Dallas a year because OSU would probably have to agree to play one there.

West Virginia becomes an all around sports addition like Louisville for the ACC. Notre Dame going all in is the add they need. Cincinnati gives them that and Ohio as a market. Then they can take Connecticut off the table and the B1G has nothing with which to expand further East.

Those are the best moves.

The PAC needs markets and Texas Tech and T.C.U. will be hard to resist. If Baylor loses voting privileges 7 is all it would take to disband. That's 7.

Best move for the SEC perhaps. With Texas & Oklahoma in the SEC then the B1G would turn all of their attention to the ACC. This would likely lead to the B1G encroaching upon SEC territory. Realignment would continue for another decade or perhaps longer. As the battle would ensue over FSU & Clemson, the B1G would pick up NC, Duke, Virginia & GT. Should the B1G then also pick up ND they then could look west to the PAC & dwarf the SEC even with FSU & Clemson. What would an arms race to a P2 do to college football in this Armageddon scenario? Sports & entertainment needs some sort of competitive balance to keep a high level of interest. Look at what has happened to wrestling since Vince has bought up all of his competitors. Just my fear of the direction that football is headed in. The more exclusive something becomes the smaller the audience becomes. The more brand vs brand matchups you have the more commonplace they become & they lose their luster. The extraordinary becomes ordinary. Over dramatic?

Lenville, your GOR doesn't expire until 2036. You will have plenty of time to get the ACCN up and running and for scheduling arrangements and possibly bundling with the SECN to secure the ACC. If we need the leverage the SEC and ACC might even merge entirely at some point. In the meantime ESPN will have both the product and the markets that they need.

Furthermore geography matters. The ACC had the chance they needed in 2010-1 to secure not only Texas but N.D. and OU and KU as well. You spit the bit. As far as damage control goes for ESPN this would be the best solution.

And have you considered that as we move to a more content driven model that the B1G will have issues? Maybe you get Maryland back and Penn State as a travel companion.
(06-06-2017 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.

We want OU and UT. Nothing has changed since '91. Those are the two most valuable brands left on the table outside of Notre Dame being in between them. OU is pushing the B1G buttons to try to pry a bid out of the SEC for OSU. If Texas wants in (especially if OU is coming) we need a 4th. We have A&M so we won't agree to Tech. I think the compromise is to keep OU and KU and UT together and with those three we agree to OSU.

Those are our 4.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That's concise. It gives us three top brands two of which are AAU. And it gives us at least two games in Dallas a year because OSU would probably have to agree to play one there.

West Virginia becomes an all around sports addition like Louisville for the ACC. Notre Dame going all in is the add they need. Cincinnati gives them that and Ohio as a market. Then they can take Connecticut off the table and the B1G has nothing with which to expand further East.

Those are the best moves.

The PAC needs markets and Texas Tech and T.C.U. will be hard to resist. If Baylor loses voting privileges 7 is all it would take to disband. That's 7.

JR, I don't believe that ESPN will ever let the SEC acquire Texas. It's too much power in one place.
If ESPN ever has plans to stop paying for the B1G, then they mist have at least two strong conferences to draw from. But they don't want to have to deal with a super strong conference with too much influence. ESPN doesn't want the tail wagging the dog.
I fully expect to see Texas as a partial member of the ACC, and I can truly see the value of Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. Kansas fills deficiencies. And most importantly encompasses enough of the old Big 8 to make those members feel comfortable in their new home.
(06-11-2017 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.

We want OU and UT. Nothing has changed since '91. Those are the two most valuable brands left on the table outside of Notre Dame being in between them. OU is pushing the B1G buttons to try to pry a bid out of the SEC for OSU. If Texas wants in (especially if OU is coming) we need a 4th. We have A&M so we won't agree to Tech. I think the compromise is to keep OU and KU and UT together and with those three we agree to OSU.

Those are our 4.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That's concise. It gives us three top brands two of which are AAU. And it gives us at least two games in Dallas a year because OSU would probably have to agree to play one there.

West Virginia becomes an all around sports addition like Louisville for the ACC. Notre Dame going all in is the add they need. Cincinnati gives them that and Ohio as a market. Then they can take Connecticut off the table and the B1G has nothing with which to expand further East.

Those are the best moves.

The PAC needs markets and Texas Tech and T.C.U. will be hard to resist. If Baylor loses voting privileges 7 is all it would take to disband. That's 7.

JR, I don't believe that ESPN will ever let the SEC acquire Texas. It's too much power in one place.
If ESPN ever has plans to stop paying for the B1G, then they mist have at least two strong conferences to draw from. But they don't want to have to deal with a super strong conference with too much influence. ESPN doesn't want the tail wagging the dog.
I fully expect to see Texas as a partial member of the ACC, and I can truly see the value of Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. Kansas fills deficiencies. And most importantly encompasses enough of the old Big 8 to make those members feel comfortable in their new home.

And that depends upon Texas. ESPN puckered up to Bevo for 15 million a year to keep the cow around. If Texas chooses to eschew the ACC things will change.
(06-11-2017 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-11-2017 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-06-2017 08:02 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN may be trying to accumulate enough inventory where they won't need any B1G or PAC games ever.
Right now I'm watching Florida v. Oklahoma (women's softball of TV). This is the kind of inventory that the SEC needs to fill network spots through out the year (not labor day thru Thanksgiving).
I would look for the SEC to start talking to both Oklahoma and Kansas and which ever schools they might want IF (a big if) a move to 18 is warranted (like Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia). That would give the SEC a western pod of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, OSU, Arkansas and A&M.
Add an 18 team ACC with Notre Dame and Texas and two of Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Tulane or Cincinnati and it could provide ESPN with year round inventory with strong content for the entire school calendar.

Enough quality inventory....if OU/OSU/KU/WVU joined the SEC, the only thing possible for Texas would be to join the PAC or rebuild what's left of that Big 12 turd.

Football after dark would become a PAC exclusive. UT's inventory might be worthless at that point and going independent in football might be the only way to salvage any type of TV contract.

We want OU and UT. Nothing has changed since '91. Those are the two most valuable brands left on the table outside of Notre Dame being in between them. OU is pushing the B1G buttons to try to pry a bid out of the SEC for OSU. If Texas wants in (especially if OU is coming) we need a 4th. We have A&M so we won't agree to Tech. I think the compromise is to keep OU and KU and UT together and with those three we agree to OSU.

Those are our 4.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Central: Alabama, Auburn, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That's concise. It gives us three top brands two of which are AAU. And it gives us at least two games in Dallas a year because OSU would probably have to agree to play one there.

West Virginia becomes an all around sports addition like Louisville for the ACC. Notre Dame going all in is the add they need. Cincinnati gives them that and Ohio as a market. Then they can take Connecticut off the table and the B1G has nothing with which to expand further East.

Those are the best moves.

The PAC needs markets and Texas Tech and T.C.U. will be hard to resist. If Baylor loses voting privileges 7 is all it would take to disband. That's 7.

JR, I don't believe that ESPN will ever let the SEC acquire Texas. It's too much power in one place.
If ESPN ever has plans to stop paying for the B1G, then they mist have at least two strong conferences to draw from. But they don't want to have to deal with a super strong conference with too much influence. ESPN doesn't want the tail wagging the dog.
I fully expect to see Texas as a partial member of the ACC, and I can truly see the value of Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. Kansas fills deficiencies. And most importantly encompasses enough of the old Big 8 to make those members feel comfortable in their new home.

And that depends upon Texas. ESPN puckered up to Bevo for 15 million a year to keep the cow around. If Texas chooses to eschew the ACC things will change.

We're not worried.......we're very likable!
(06-11-2017 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]1. JR, I don't believe that ESPN will ever let the SEC acquire Texas. It's too much power in one place.

2. If ESPN ever has plans to stop paying for the B1G, then they mist have at least two strong conferences to draw from. But they don't want to have to deal with a super strong conference with too much influence. ESPN doesn't want the tail wagging the dog.

3. I fully expect to see Texas as a partial member of the ACC, and I can truly see the value of Oklahoma and Kansas in the SEC. Kansas fills deficiencies. And most importantly encompasses enough of the old Big 8 to make those members feel comfortable in their new home.


1. It's not about power, but having Texas in the SEC would create tons of great matchups. The Tier I rights would be huge. Although I doubt they take that option.

2. ESPN didn't want to match Fox's amount for the other half of the B1G's Tier I and II packages. ESPN might be happy with a smaller percentage of B1G games, just enough to keep that area of the country paying for the espn channels.

3. I would be a big fan of that. That would free up more games for the Longhorns to host on their network and allow them to schedule out of conference. The ACC could add a pod of Big 12 schools. ND and Texas could each play 5 ACC games a year.
Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.
(06-12-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.

It's actually easier to place 7 if we only take 4. I really do believe the PAC would go after Tech and T.C.U. if they were available. So if we took the original 4 I mentioned. That's 6. WVU to the ACC makes 7. If Baylor loses their voting rights as part of the conference's sanctions that might do it. But that's a lot of ifs.
(06-12-2017 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 07:22 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 06:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-12-2017 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Here's the deal. Texas and Oklahoma have the #1 and #4 Top Gross Revenue producing Athletic Departments in the nation. They aren't going to risk that success and their branding by making moves too far away from their current business models.

What are those models? They like to play neighboring state schools and in state rivals. But both athletic departments want more games against name brand schools in their season ticket books.

So what kind of offer is going to entice them away from their own conference? The kind of offer that doesn't require them to change their present successful business models.

The SEC offers Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. We would have to cover Oklahoma's in state rival and add another friend in Kansas to make it work. Texas would have their fiercest in state rival back and would have one of their oldest SWC rivals back in Arkansas as well. Set A&M up to be the Longhorns permanent crossover rival and it leaves them with two OOC games to schedule: Texas Tech, Baylor, T.C.U. or Rice if they wanted to do so. The rotational divisional games would provide both with the name brands they want in their season ticket books.

They keep and play a core of the same schools they've played for years in both the SWC and Big 12. Missouri is just another familiar face game.

So they keep the look and feel of their present successful games in their current business model, but they gain access to other football first brands regularly. Then their other sports fit ours. That's not true in the PAC or Big 10.

The reason they won't move to the ACC is because it is too radical a departure from their present business model and too far for minor sports. Texas's brand cant afford outlier status and they know it.

But I'm fairly certain that the SEC won't be able to land them without taking two of their friends as well. Kansas is a strong enough brand that when partnered with Texas and Oklahoma they cover OSU's entry nicely.

It's a business and they will run it that way.

What we could do is go to 20. Go to 4 divisions and conference semis...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas

Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss

South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina

East: Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

-Play your 4 division mates
-Play 1 permanent rival from each of the other divisions
-Play 1 rotating opponent from each of the other divisions

That's 10 games. I like 10 because the only problem with 9 is that the home/away schedule is uneven every year. Play 10 and everyone gets 5 quality home games against name opponents. Also, with this alignment you would play everyone in the league at least once every 4 years.

Everyone, of course, gets 2 OOC games. Some will use it to play an OOC rival and others will use it to play neutral site games. As we move towards the day where Power schools play each other exclusively then we also move to a time where having only 2 OOC games won't limit a school's desire to play quality opponents from around the country. At that, 10 league games makes a lot of sense because more money stays in house.

In this alignment, each division winner plays for the conference title while a large number of key rivalries are preserved.

That would work, but could we make it pay? That's what ESPN would have to decide. And then there is the matter of getting 8 teams placed. By taking these 6 we don't really leave anyone that another might take. Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, and T.C.U. would be left.

I think we end up waiting for the GOR to expire anyway.

I could see TCU having a landing spot, but the others are going to have a tough time I think.

If the SEC went to 20 with those schools, I could see the ACC responding with ND as #15. If getting into Texas looked financially lucrative then I think TCU & Houston would get the nod. Cincinnati would finish it off as a nice #18. While the $ wouldn't match the SEC, it could be close to the B1G.
Reference URL's