CSNbbs

It occurs to me that the networks need content more than anything else. Of course, that's how they make money. You have to have live content in order to gain viewers and sell ads at a decent rate. It always comes down to content. ESPN, for example, needs content for their primary platforms as well as their commitment to the SECN and now their commitment to the ACCN.

This is why I think most, if not all, of the Big 12 schools will survive to live on in other Power conferences because the networks need the games.

In addition...

I think ESPN and FOX will essentially form a tentative peace in order to fend off any new media. That should mean greater cooperation like what we saw with them essentially splitting the new B1G contract.

ESPN and FOX won't be able to afford any new media outlets like Amazon encroaching on their territory with solid product. The simplest solution is to make sure you have the product while it's easier to get.

So I don't think the divvying up of the Big 12 along network lines is necessarily the way things break although it certainly should play a role.

The PAC contract is up in 2024 and while Larry Scott wants to move all content to the PAC Networks, I don't see that happening. They'd never generate enough revenue even if they get full carriage nationally. Either way, that would seem to indicate the PAC is not willing to sell to ESPN and probably not to FOX either.

The PAC is in line for 4 Big 12 schools most likely and to have their contract once again split between FOX and ESPN much like that of the B1G.

The SEC and ACC are firmly in ESPN hands. The B1G is split but leans towards FOX control because of the BTN relationship.

So I do see maybe a few G5s getting in to make the numbers work, not many but a few. This has the added benefit of ensuring that there's no chance of a surviving Big 12 falling into the hands of Amazon.

So how about this...

SEC goes to 18 with Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State

PAC goes to 16 with Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, and Colorado State

ACC goes to 18 with Texas, West Virginia, Tulane, and full membership from Notre Dame

B1G goes to 16 with Kansas and UConn

I really do like playing with all of these scenarios but in the end I think Occam's Razor will apply. I think if we stop at 16 the SEC will land (before the GOR expires) Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or (after the GOR expires) Oklahoma and Texas. Why? We now have the schools their fans want to play. We have their oldest rivals and some schools that would make great annual games for them. They love women's softball, football, baseball, swimming & diving, track & field, and country club sports (tennis and golf). Well guess what so do we and we have the closest venues for them to play in. In the end geography will trump all.

I do think however there will be a push by OU and UT to get little brothers on board. Texahoma is possible to 18. Owning all of Texas would be huge, and OU and UT are both top 7 brands. OSU is something like 31 and Tech actually has the best positioning to enhance their academics.

Why 18? If we expand further to the West the best way to make it happen effectively and in a way that would be long lasting is to essentially create a division out of that expansion.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech would make for a heckuva division.

It really is the simplest solution.

Now we'll wait and see.

P.S.: If Kansas took Texas Tech's place then I actually like it even more.

Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

Yeah, I saw his posts. He's claimed an insider friend for two years and nothing has panned out the way he proclaims. Still what he posts is at least logical to an extent.

But I ask you this, why have three Big 12 beat reporters, Finebaum, and others speculated about the pair of Oklahoma's to the SEC? They could be wrong as well, but they do have inside sources. Besides, no conference every lays all of its plans out on the table.

But my point here is that 4 more Big 12 schools would give those already here and those joining their own local division of familiar foes. I think that is important moving forward. Geography will trump everything but money, and what the SEC offers is as good if not better than anyone else's financial package.

What lent credibility to his post this time was his grudging admission that the Big 10 hasn't responded. OU is not AAU, and is not really close to obtaining that status at all.

I don't doubt one bit that the SEC would love to have just OU with a Texas or Kansas, but a core of 4 in a 16 member conference wouldn't give those on the Western flank enough of a local schedule to keep their fans involved. Arkansas, OU, OSU, Missouri and either Tech or Kansas to go with Texas would.

A&M could stick with L.S.U. Alabama, Auburn, and the Mississippi schools. The East stays the East minus Mizzou.

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

When I read that RedHawk said that the ACC had offered Oklahoma, I knew that his entire post was

(12-15-2016 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

When I read that RedHawk said that the ACC had offered Oklahoma, I knew that his entire post was

Yeah, I didn't buy that one either. And let's not forget that the PAC never offered the pair of Oklahoma's. That was the sticking point last time around.

(12-15-2016 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

When I read that RedHawk said that the ACC had offered Oklahoma, I knew that his entire post was

Yeah, I didn't buy that one either. And let's not forget that the PAC never offered the pair of Oklahoma's. That was the sticking point last time around.

There was interest from the PAC or OU/OSU, just not the votes. I remember waiting on word to leak to see in the pair were going, but that failed and Texas had a long talk with OU the following weekend to work things out

(12-15-2016 05:46 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]I really do like playing with all of these scenarios but in the end I think Occam's Razor will apply. I think if we stop at 16 the SEC will land (before the GOR expires) Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or (after the GOR expires) Oklahoma and Texas. Why? We now have the schools their fans want to play. We have their oldest rivals and some schools that would make great annual games for them. They love women's softball, football, baseball, swimming & diving, track & field, and country club sports (tennis and golf). Well guess what so do we and we have the closest venues for them to play in. In the end geography will trump all.

I do think however there will be a push by OU and UT to get little brothers on board. Texahoma is possible to 18. Owning all of Texas would be huge, and OU and UT are both top 7 brands. OSU is something like 31 and Tech actually has the best positioning to enhance their academics.

Why 18? If we expand further to the West the best way to make it happen effectively and in a way that would be long lasting is to essentially create a division out of that expansion.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech would make for a heckuva division.

It really is the simplest solution.

Now we'll wait and see.

P.S.: If Kansas took Texas Tech's place then I actually like it even more.

I don't disagree and I'd be fine with Texahoma or the addition of Kansas in there somewhere.

I'm wondering how the GOR affects these decisions. Some say it really has weight and others say it's a matter of damages being accounted for. So I do agree with Occam's Razor ruling the day, but it would be pretty simple to just get this over with and finish off the Big 12. Perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part.

Of course, a Big 12 without its major powers that could be had at a bargain basement price is pretty simple too. And it has the added benefit of throwing in BYU and a couple of decent G5s. My thinking is such a league could favor Amazon or some other new media and then ESPN/FOX lose out on a fair bit of content. Do they care as long as they've got the major brands? I don't know, maybe not. If I were them though, I'd be careful about allowing a new player into the market or allowing the loss of so much content given the financial squeeze that could be coming.

Of course, I suppose it's possible ESPN wants to reduce costs and let go of content that doesn't drive major viewership. Just focus on their bell cows and not worry about the rest.

If we took Texahoma...

West - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

Central - Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

East - Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

A very strong league that essentially spans multiple regions of the county. How does it break down for everyone else then?

The ACC takes West Virginia, Cincinnati, and UConn along with Notre Dame going all in.

Coastal - Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Syracuse, Boston College

East - Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, West Virginia

Atlantic - North Carolina, Notre Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, UConn

The B1G takes Kansas and Iowa State

The PAC takes TCU, Houston, Colorado State, and Tulane

I know it sounds odd that the West Coast league would reach that far East, but 1) their options are limited and 2) people have talked about Hawaii as a viable addition yet the travel to Honolulu wouldn't be too different than that to New Orleans. Plus you get the added benefit of more CTZ start times and exposure.

(12-15-2016 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

When I read that RedHawk said that the ACC had offered Oklahoma, I knew that his entire post was

Yeah, I didn't buy that one either. And let's not forget that the PAC never offered the pair of Oklahoma's. That was the sticking point last time around.

When Dodds shopped Texahoma to the ACC the conference rejected BOTH Oklahoma schools. Dodds then came back with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas.......still no go. The ACC would have taken Iowa State instead of Oklahoma in that scenario, but that wouldn't work for the Texas schools.
LP4 had accurately reported about some bad blood between Oklahoma and several ACC schools some time ago. The notion that Oklahoma would ever be acceptable to the ACC, while not impossible, is a little far fetched.

(12-17-2016 10:47 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

When I read that RedHawk said that the ACC had offered Oklahoma, I knew that his entire post was

Yeah, I didn't buy that one either. And let's not forget that the PAC never offered the pair of Oklahoma's. That was the sticking point last time around.

When Dodds shopped Texahoma to the ACC the conference rejected BOTH Oklahoma schools. Dodds then came back with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas.......still no go. The ACC would have taken Iowa State instead of Oklahoma in that scenario, but that wouldn't work for the Texas schools.
LP4 had accurately reported about some bad blood between Oklahoma and several ACC schools some time ago. The notion that Oklahoma would ever be acceptable to the ACC, while not impossible, is a little far fetched.

What's lp4?

(12-17-2016 11:36 AM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2016 10:47 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2016 06:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]Over on land thieves, red hawk said his source at OU who supposedly negotiated with other conferences on behalf of OU said OU is just going to ride out the GOR and make a decision during the next round of tv contracts as OU doesn't have the money or desire to fight its way out of its current contracts.

He also said OU still has a standing offer for OU and just OU. The PAC made two previous offers. The ACC offered at some point but OU declined. Surprisingly, Big Ten made an inquiry but all communication has gone cold since.

When I read that RedHawk said that the ACC had offered Oklahoma, I knew that his entire post was

Yeah, I didn't buy that one either. And let's not forget that the PAC never offered the pair of Oklahoma's. That was the sticking point last time around.

When Dodds shopped Texahoma to the ACC the conference rejected BOTH Oklahoma schools. Dodds then came back with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas.......still no go. The ACC would have taken Iowa State instead of Oklahoma in that scenario, but that wouldn't work for the Texas schools.
LP4 had accurately reported about some bad blood between Oklahoma and several ACC schools some time ago. The notion that Oklahoma would ever be acceptable to the ACC, while not impossible, is a little far fetched.

What's lp4?

Lumberpack4 is another poster here who is a N.C. State fan. He's a good poster. lp4 is just quicker to type.

Why do we think copying the Big 12s failure of "let's have a bunch of redundant unnecessary teams that all feed off the same recruiting market" is a great idea? A big part of the B1G and SEC success is NOT doing this and limiting the number of teams per state to one in modern expansion.

OU and Kansas are the only B12 teams that will enhance the SEC (UT is cancer that will kill it) and frankly neither of them is really interested.

It's not necessarily the sexiest choice but our future is bringing in a NC and a VA team. Adding another Florida's worth of population to our content viewing footprint is the ONLY expansion option that makes financial sense

(12-17-2016 01:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Why do we think copying the Big 12s failure of "let's have a bunch of redundant unnecessary teams that all feed off the same recruiting market" is a great idea? A big part of the B1G and SEC success is NOT doing this and limiting the number of teams per state to one in modern expansion.

OU and Kansas are the only B12 teams that will enhance the SEC (UT is cancer that will kill it) and frankly neither of them is really interested.

It's not necessarily the sexiest choice but our future is bringing in a NC and a VA team. Adding another Florida's worth of population to our content viewing footprint is the ONLY expansion option that makes financial sense

10th, the only additions from the ACC that make sense for us now are Florida State and Clemson. The market philosophy is dead, finished, obsolete, and gone for good! Virginia Tech is middling at best and no school from North Carolina is worth a damn. Plus you are talking about schools that can't put 70,000 in a stadium. Think about that when the SEC averages 77,000 and that's with Missouri being down 20% this year.

Branding and content value will drive all models moving forward because no matter what technology does the rest of the nation wants to watch big names play, especially big names with full venues, and solid records. The pinned thread at the top, while old, is still 100% applicable. In reality the SEC only has 4 candidates that can add to our bottom line. In order they are Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson.

I agree that the Horns are poison, but in reality ESPN will crap a brick if they don't get to keep them. So in all likelihood they wind up either in the SEC or ACC unless ESPN uses them to land a larger percentage of the PAC, where they have nothing but a lease, or the Big 10.

I think the best two additions for the SEC would be Oklahoma and Florida State period. What's the likelihood of that?

Nobody is leaving the ACC. They are here to stay. They may one day form a bargaining arrangement or a network arrangement with the SEC but the two of them are going to remain entities identified by their conference brand whether we conduct business as one or not.

The Big 12 is the dead man walking here so you tell me just where we will most likely get additions? If that is the case and you don't want Texas then who is it that we will likely go after???

Oklahoma doesn't want any other conference and neither does Texas, but their time will run out in 7 years. At least 1 of them, if not both, will be forced to find new homes. There is only 1 conference that can offer them a top pay day, geographically friendly distances to travel, and old rivals to play and it sure as hell isn't the big frigging 10 or the putrid PAC.

So whether the SEC hankers for them or not, ESPN will place them where they can profit the most.

I imagine in the end the best the SEC can do for A&M is to keep you out of division, that if the others do come our way, they would be in.

To put the record straight here my expansion choices in '92 included Florida State. We were foolish not to pick up a second Florida school. The ACC without either Miami or Florida State would be at a severe recruiting disadvantage in a state they now share recruiting success with us 50/50 in most years. I sure don't think the SEC will make that mistake in Texas!

As an old line SEC guy, I didn't want really want westward expansion at all. I would much rather have kept to schools in the Southeast within driving distance. South Carolina was fine. If we had gotten N.C. State then that was doable, but not a great add. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or Miami would have served us better now than anyone we've added other than your Aggies.

Adding the Aggies was great for L.S.U. and Arkansas, and temporarily great for the SECN (of which as a conference we initially had an option to own a %). Slive wisely declined. The conference networks as we know them now will be dead in less than a decade. ESPN will have to honor our contract until 2031 so we'll be fine that way or with a more profitable new model if one presents itself.

All the market model ever was was a ruse to get key states to split up their product so that various regions of the country could be drawn into play with the split allegiances, and more importantly to keep conferences from having the leverage of totally owning Florida, Georgia, and as initially planned, Virginia or North Carolina. it is NOT the profitable, or smart way to move forward continuing to think 1 school 1 state gives you anything. The school you have will have to compellingly move the national audience if having that one school is going to give any kind of an audience other than their local one. There will be no more cable pay rates based on subscriptions to boost the likes of an N.C. State or Virginia.

For national audience reasons, which is where the ad money is regardless of the delivery model, having two schools in large states is a major insurance policy for both keeping a large local market and for doubling down on one of those schools having a compelling season if the other sucks.

Florida being down is hurting the SEC. When the Aggies fade at the end of the season our numbers dip in Texas. At least if we had another DFW school those numbers would be supported in Texas. We screwed the pooch in Florida by listening to ESPN in '92. We are now aware of the cost of that blunder. It won't happen again.

So ponder these things and then remind yourself that a crappy team in North Carolina or Virginia that can't put 50,000 butts in the seats, let alone 77,000, and can't field a nationally relevant product in football, isn't worth doodly squat in terms of advertising for national football market. Right about now I'm so happy we don't have N.C. State and Virginia Tech that words can't describe my relief.

The Big 10 quietly knows they screwed up with Rutgers and Maryland. At least truly the ACC can say that other than as an academic institution they gained in product when the Terps left. If Mizzou gets over their recent political garbage and gets back on track of at least being solidly competitive we'll be fine.

Kansas can prop up our basketball, which is atrocious, but they will never really pay their way in. They would be at least a respite on the West Division's school's schedules in the Fall.

So, while I hate the Horns as well, and would rather expand with relevant brands in the Southeast, the reality remains there are only 4 schools that really could add to our bottom line, and while the reasons they would have changed since 2012, the ability to land them favors those to the West.

(12-17-2016 01:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Why do we think copying the Big 12s failure of "let's have a bunch of redundant unnecessary teams that all feed off the same recruiting market" is a great idea? A big part of the B1G and SEC success is NOT doing this and limiting the number of teams per state to one in modern expansion.

OU and Kansas are the only B12 teams that will enhance the SEC (UT is cancer that will kill it) and frankly neither of them is really interested.

It's not necessarily the sexiest choice but our future is bringing in a NC and a VA team. Adding another Florida's worth of population to our content viewing footprint is the ONLY expansion option that makes financial sense

You have answered your own question.
There is no ACC school in North Carolina of Virginia that wants to be in the SEC either.
It would be smart to start thinking in terms of 15 and not 16. It's the only way that we can divide the divisions up on a regional basis and still allow two teams in the same division to advance. Three division winners and a "wild card" in conference semi-finals would allow the second best team in a division to continue play which would tend to keep the entire conference engaged in the playoff excitement instead of losing their enthusiasm even if their team lost a head to head battle in their own division.

Obviously JR and I disagree about the importance of raw population numbers consuming your product with or more without the cable model. Another Floridas worth of population ENGAGED in SEC football is very important.

Also I think that given how little commitment the ACC NC schools have for football anyway, who says we need one of them? By the time we're ready to expand again, ECU will probably be ready as a school. Virginia doesn't have someone else as ready but it's a big state and can definitely support another program.

(12-17-2016 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2016 01:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Why do we think copying the Big 12s failure of "let's have a bunch of redundant unnecessary teams that all feed off the same recruiting market" is a great idea? A big part of the B1G and SEC success is NOT doing this and limiting the number of teams per state to one in modern expansion.

OU and Kansas are the only B12 teams that will enhance the SEC (UT is cancer that will kill it) and frankly neither of them is really interested.

It's not necessarily the sexiest choice but our future is bringing in a NC and a VA team. Adding another Florida's worth of population to our content viewing footprint is the ONLY expansion option that makes financial sense

10th, the only additions from the ACC that make sense for us now are Florida State and Clemson. The market philosophy is dead, finished, obsolete, and gone for good! Virginia Tech is middling at best and no school from North Carolina is worth a damn. Plus you are talking about schools that can't put 70,000 in a stadium. Think about that when the SEC averages 77,000 and that's with Missouri being down 20% this year.

Branding and content value will drive all models moving forward because no matter what technology does the rest of the nation wants to watch big names play, especially big names with full venues, and solid records. The pinned thread at the top, while old, is still 100% applicable. In reality the SEC only has 4 candidates that can add to our bottom line. In order they are Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson.

I agree that the Horns are poison, but in reality ESPN will crap a brick if they don't get to keep them. So in all likelihood they wind up either in the SEC or ACC unless ESPN uses them to land a larger percentage of the PAC, where they have nothing but a lease, or the Big 10.

I think the best two additions for the SEC would be Oklahoma and Florida State period. What's the likelihood of that?

Nobody is leaving the ACC. They are here to stay. They may one day form a bargaining arrangement or a network arrangement with the SEC but the two of them are going to remain entities identified by their conference brand whether we conduct business as one or not.

The Big 12 is the dead man walking here so you tell me just where we will most likely get additions? If that is the case and you don't want Texas then who is it that we will likely go after???

Oklahoma doesn't want any other conference and neither does Texas, but their time will run out in 7 years. At least 1 of them, if not both, will be forced to find new homes. There is only 1 conference that can offer them a top pay day, geographically friendly distances to travel, and old rivals to play and it sure as hell isn't the big frigging 10 or the putrid PAC.

So whether the SEC hankers for them or not, ESPN will place them where they can profit the most.

I imagine in the end the best the SEC can do for A&M is to keep you out of division, that if the others do come our way, they would be in.

To put the record straight here my expansion choices in '92 included Florida State. We were foolish not to pick up a second Florida school. The ACC without either Miami or Florida State would be at a severe recruiting disadvantage in a state they now share recruiting success with us 50/50 in most years. I sure don't think the SEC will make that mistake in Texas!

As an old line SEC guy, I didn't want really want westward expansion at all. I would much rather have kept to schools in the Southeast within driving distance. South Carolina was fine. If we had gotten N.C. State then that was doable, but not a great add. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or Miami would have served us better now than anyone we've added other than your Aggies.

Adding the Aggies was great for L.S.U. and Arkansas, and temporarily great for the SECN (of which as a conference we initially had an option to own a %). Slive wisely declined. The conference networks as we know them now will be dead in less than a decade. ESPN will have to honor our contract until 2031 so we'll be fine that way or with a more profitable new model if one presents itself.

All the market model ever was was a ruse to get key states to split up their product so that various regions of the country could be drawn into play with the split allegiances, and more importantly to keep conferences from having the leverage of totally owning Florida, Georgia, and as initially planned, Virginia or North Carolina. it is NOT the profitable, or smart way to move forward continuing to think 1 school 1 state gives you anything. The school you have will have to compellingly move the national audience if having that one school is going to give any kind of an audience other than their local one. There will be no more cable pay rates based on subscriptions to boost the likes of an N.C. State or Virginia.

For national audience reasons, which is where the ad money is regardless of the delivery model, having two schools in large states is a major insurance policy for both keeping a large local market and for doubling down on one of those schools having a compelling season if the other sucks.

Florida being down is hurting the SEC. When the Aggies fade at the end of the season our numbers dip in Texas. At least if we had another DFW school those numbers would be supported in Texas. We screwed the pooch in Florida by listening to ESPN in '92. We are now aware of the cost of that blunder. It won't happen again.

So ponder these things and then remind yourself that a crappy team in North Carolina or Virginia that can't put 50,000 butts in the seats, let alone 77,000, and can't field a nationally relevant product in football, isn't worth doodly squat in terms of advertising for national football market. Right about now I'm so happy we don't have N.C. State and Virginia Tech that words can't describe my relief.

The Big 10 quietly knows they screwed up with Rutgers and Maryland. At least truly the ACC can say that other than as an academic institution they gained in product when the Terps left. If Mizzou gets over their recent political garbage and gets back on track of at least being solidly competitive we'll be fine.

Kansas can prop up our basketball, which is atrocious, but they will never really pay their way in. They would be at least a respite on the West Division's school's schedules in the Fall.

So, while I hate the Horns as well, and would rather expand with relevant brands in the Southeast, the reality remains there are only 4 schools that really could add to our bottom line, and while the reasons they would have changed since 2012, the ability to land them favors those to the West.

You didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm going to give it to you anyway.
Here is your alternative.
The SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G, so they can go where they belong.(15)
The SEC then acquires Texas and West Virginia(15)
The ACC adds Notre Dame as a full time member.(15)
The PAC also goes to the three division format with a total of 18 teams by adding: Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State.

Baylor and TCU move to the AAC with some guarantees for future SEC contests with their traditional rivals.

(12-17-2016 10:04 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2016 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2016 01:40 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Why do we think copying the Big 12s failure of "let's have a bunch of redundant unnecessary teams that all feed off the same recruiting market" is a great idea? A big part of the B1G and SEC success is NOT doing this and limiting the number of teams per state to one in modern expansion.

OU and Kansas are the only B12 teams that will enhance the SEC (UT is cancer that will kill it) and frankly neither of them is really interested.

It's not necessarily the sexiest choice but our future is bringing in a NC and a VA team. Adding another Florida's worth of population to our content viewing footprint is the ONLY expansion option that makes financial sense

10th, the only additions from the ACC that make sense for us now are Florida State and Clemson. The market philosophy is dead, finished, obsolete, and gone for good! Virginia Tech is middling at best and no school from North Carolina is worth a damn. Plus you are talking about schools that can't put 70,000 in a stadium. Think about that when the SEC averages 77,000 and that's with Missouri being down 20% this year.

Branding and content value will drive all models moving forward because no matter what technology does the rest of the nation wants to watch big names play, especially big names with full venues, and solid records. The pinned thread at the top, while old, is still 100% applicable. In reality the SEC only has 4 candidates that can add to our bottom line. In order they are Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson.

I agree that the Horns are poison, but in reality ESPN will crap a brick if they don't get to keep them. So in all likelihood they wind up either in the SEC or ACC unless ESPN uses them to land a larger percentage of the PAC, where they have nothing but a lease, or the Big 10.

I think the best two additions for the SEC would be Oklahoma and Florida State period. What's the likelihood of that?

Nobody is leaving the ACC. They are here to stay. They may one day form a bargaining arrangement or a network arrangement with the SEC but the two of them are going to remain entities identified by their conference brand whether we conduct business as one or not.

The Big 12 is the dead man walking here so you tell me just where we will most likely get additions? If that is the case and you don't want Texas then who is it that we will likely go after???

Oklahoma doesn't want any other conference and neither does Texas, but their time will run out in 7 years. At least 1 of them, if not both, will be forced to find new homes. There is only 1 conference that can offer them a top pay day, geographically friendly distances to travel, and old rivals to play and it sure as hell isn't the big frigging 10 or the putrid PAC.

So whether the SEC hankers for them or not, ESPN will place them where they can profit the most.

I imagine in the end the best the SEC can do for A&M is to keep you out of division, that if the others do come our way, they would be in.

To put the record straight here my expansion choices in '92 included Florida State. We were foolish not to pick up a second Florida school. The ACC without either Miami or Florida State would be at a severe recruiting disadvantage in a state they now share recruiting success with us 50/50 in most years. I sure don't think the SEC will make that mistake in Texas!

As an old line SEC guy, I didn't want really want westward expansion at all. I would much rather have kept to schools in the Southeast within driving distance. South Carolina was fine. If we had gotten N.C. State then that was doable, but not a great add. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, or Miami would have served us better now than anyone we've added other than your Aggies.

Adding the Aggies was great for L.S.U. and Arkansas, and temporarily great for the SECN (of which as a conference we initially had an option to own a %). Slive wisely declined. The conference networks as we know them now will be dead in less than a decade. ESPN will have to honor our contract until 2031 so we'll be fine that way or with a more profitable new model if one presents itself.

All the market model ever was was a ruse to get key states to split up their product so that various regions of the country could be drawn into play with the split allegiances, and more importantly to keep conferences from having the leverage of totally owning Florida, Georgia, and as initially planned, Virginia or North Carolina. it is NOT the profitable, or smart way to move forward continuing to think 1 school 1 state gives you anything. The school you have will have to compellingly move the national audience if having that one school is going to give any kind of an audience other than their local one. There will be no more cable pay rates based on subscriptions to boost the likes of an N.C. State or Virginia.

For national audience reasons, which is where the ad money is regardless of the delivery model, having two schools in large states is a major insurance policy for both keeping a large local market and for doubling down on one of those schools having a compelling season if the other sucks.

Florida being down is hurting the SEC. When the Aggies fade at the end of the season our numbers dip in Texas. At least if we had another DFW school those numbers would be supported in Texas. We screwed the pooch in Florida by listening to ESPN in '92. We are now aware of the cost of that blunder. It won't happen again.

So ponder these things and then remind yourself that a crappy team in North Carolina or Virginia that can't put 50,000 butts in the seats, let alone 77,000, and can't field a nationally relevant product in football, isn't worth doodly squat in terms of advertising for national football market. Right about now I'm so happy we don't have N.C. State and Virginia Tech that words can't describe my relief.

The Big 10 quietly knows they screwed up with Rutgers and Maryland. At least truly the ACC can say that other than as an academic institution they gained in product when the Terps left. If Mizzou gets over their recent political garbage and gets back on track of at least being solidly competitive we'll be fine.

Kansas can prop up our basketball, which is atrocious, but they will never really pay their way in. They would be at least a respite on the West Division's school's schedules in the Fall.

So, while I hate the Horns as well, and would rather expand with relevant brands in the Southeast, the reality remains there are only 4 schools that really could add to our bottom line, and while the reasons they would have changed since 2012, the ability to land them favors those to the West.

You didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm going to give it to you anyway.
Here is your alternative.
The SEC cedes Missouri to the B1G, so they can go where they belong.(15)
The SEC then acquires Texas and West Virginia(15)
The ACC adds Notre Dame as a full time member.(15)
The PAC also goes to the three division format with a total of 18 teams by adding: Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State.

Baylor and TCU move to the AAC with some guarantees for future SEC contests with their traditional rivals.

These past couple of months your scenarios have gotten much more intriguing. I just don't see Missouri choosing to leave. They have it better here. But other than that it works. But, so would Oklahoma and West Virginia, or Texas and Oklahoma if the switch did happen, or we could simply keep Missouri and add either Oklahoma or Texas.

But X, other than the need to take 8 to dissolve the Big 12 there is no reason to for the PAC to move to 18.

(12-17-2016 05:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously JR and I disagree about the importance of raw population numbers consuming your product with or more without the cable model. Another Floridas worth of population ENGAGED in SEC football is very important.

Also I think that given how little commitment the ACC NC schools have for football anyway, who says we need one of them? By the time we're ready to expand again, ECU will probably be ready as a school. Virginia doesn't have someone else as ready but it's a big state and can definitely support another program.

I don't necessarily disagree with your fundamental point, but it just doesn't matter. Whether NC or VA schools are interested or not doesn't matter. Whether it's a profitable move or not doesn't matter.

The ACC is secure now and ESPN isn't going to do anything to weaken their own bottom line by taking schools from one and placing them in the other. From here on out, the SEC and ACC are tied at the hip. In fact, I see ESPN ensuring more and more crossover content to keep more money in house. We'll have to get used to that to the idea that ACC schools are no longer options.