06-25-2018, 10:58 PM
From the time that the Big 10 added Penn State and the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina it was clear to anyone who could read a map that the Big East and likely the Big 12 or ACC would be doomed. Penn State indicated the desire of the Big 10 to move into markets larger and more viable than those of their native states. Arkansas and South Carolina were bridges to alternate futures of the SEC. One future would lead into Texas, the other future into North Carolina. South Carolina and Arkansas were fine additions in their own right, but they were selected simultaneously for a reason. Which conference would weaken and provide the pieces needed to expand the SEC not only in size, but in prestige and strength?
2012 began to answer that question as we moved into Texas with A&M and into Missouri. Our immediate future would be in Westward expansion. With Arkansas in hand and Texas A&M added a case was being made for the acquisition of either Oklahoma or Texas or both. It has long been accepted that to catch the steer we would first have to corral him. Arkansas and A&M built part of that pen. I think it has always been assumed that Oklahoma would be the final piece needed to capture Bevo. Both represent the jewels to the West. If the SEC landed Oklahoma we would have cornered the market on Texas rivals. That's a nice strategy.
But what happens if Texas simply balks. We did weaken the SWC by taking Arkansas. We did weaken the Big 12 by taking A&M and Missouri. It's natural that a certain level of animosity toward the aggressor would be in order, right?
Well that's the conventional wisdom of oodles of posters and fans. But it's hooey! College football is foremost a business. Texas has the most successful business model in college football. They aren't going to want to alter it. We have already done the preliminary work to land them. We have Arkansas. We have A&M. Maybe we have to land Oklahoma to cinch the deal, or maybe not. Having the Sooners might be tempting to Texas but they are arch rivals who have managed to maintain that rivalry long before without Oklahoma being a member of the SWC.
Texas if it joins the SEC will join it because we are one of the two strongest conferences at the least and the strongest at the best. What we are not is second best. It just depends on what criteria you are using to attest to strength. So what it will come down to is proximity, familiar schools favored by Texas fans to play, and the right fit of sports. We have that. In the end the best business model in college football didn't get that way by jealously, envy, malice, or arrogance. They got that way by practically doing what was best for them. Of the options open to them now, outside of remaining in the Big 12, we are the best option for them because we will preserve the vast majority of their current highly successful business model, and nobody else can do that. If Texas wants to protect another Texas school then Oklahoma may not be essential to add. Preserving their game in Dallas would be all that would be required of our schedule makers and those at Texas.
Outside of us their best prospect might be to take the three other Big 12 Texas schools with them to the PAC. If that is the case our card to play is Oklahoma State to land Oklahoma. It's a viable card to play and it is one the Big 10 can't match. Why might that work? Because the state government of Oklahoma will want both schools accounted for in a healthy prosperous conference and because they are practical they will bring pressure to bear upon the OU administration to do what is in the best interest of their state. College Presidents don't make the decisions. The people they work for do whether that is a state, or a board of trustees for a private school. It is big business and decisions can't be made in a vacuum.
This is a practical world. Schools need revenue so thy will react to those needs practically. Schools need fans to fund their athletic programs. They will respond to those fans practically because of that need. Schools need to keep overhead low. They will respond to added travel practically. Maryland's move was not so much a poke in the eye to the ACC as it was a practical move towards revenue at a time when their athletic department could not see its way clear of its debt.
Texas has the opposite priority. The more we make a western division amenable to the Longhorn business model, the more likely it will be that they will find an excuse to join.
And what is practical for us is that we have a plan B. Oklahoma serves our needs about as well as Texas. And they will only require one other school to come.
But I don't think we really want more than two schools unless something really fortuitous comes our way.
Otherwise there to the East sits South Carolina and above them North Carolina another jewel. And all that one requires is a little bit of patience, and it would help to have a little bit of success to the West to encourage them should their conditions ever become uncomfortable.
90% of what I hear posted and of the blogs I read, and the pieces submitted by beat writers, pander to quick prejudices, animosities, and fears for the purpose of being noticed. That's how a 200 million dollar athletic department operates, or even a 100 million dollar athletic department. They are rational businessmen who know that if they don't maintain a successful model it will cost them their jobs. Who know if they alienate their fans they will suffer. And who know the best course if forced to change is the course that requires the least change.
That is why I'm confident that when further realignment occurs that the SEC is in a position of strength. Because for them to join us, means the least overall change from their current business models and also the least of the cultural adjustments for their fans.
This time our strategies in the past have already put us into a position where practicality now suggests that we are the best option if one has to be taken. All that is left to do is be patient, and gracious at least until we're teed up to play.
2012 began to answer that question as we moved into Texas with A&M and into Missouri. Our immediate future would be in Westward expansion. With Arkansas in hand and Texas A&M added a case was being made for the acquisition of either Oklahoma or Texas or both. It has long been accepted that to catch the steer we would first have to corral him. Arkansas and A&M built part of that pen. I think it has always been assumed that Oklahoma would be the final piece needed to capture Bevo. Both represent the jewels to the West. If the SEC landed Oklahoma we would have cornered the market on Texas rivals. That's a nice strategy.
But what happens if Texas simply balks. We did weaken the SWC by taking Arkansas. We did weaken the Big 12 by taking A&M and Missouri. It's natural that a certain level of animosity toward the aggressor would be in order, right?
Well that's the conventional wisdom of oodles of posters and fans. But it's hooey! College football is foremost a business. Texas has the most successful business model in college football. They aren't going to want to alter it. We have already done the preliminary work to land them. We have Arkansas. We have A&M. Maybe we have to land Oklahoma to cinch the deal, or maybe not. Having the Sooners might be tempting to Texas but they are arch rivals who have managed to maintain that rivalry long before without Oklahoma being a member of the SWC.
Texas if it joins the SEC will join it because we are one of the two strongest conferences at the least and the strongest at the best. What we are not is second best. It just depends on what criteria you are using to attest to strength. So what it will come down to is proximity, familiar schools favored by Texas fans to play, and the right fit of sports. We have that. In the end the best business model in college football didn't get that way by jealously, envy, malice, or arrogance. They got that way by practically doing what was best for them. Of the options open to them now, outside of remaining in the Big 12, we are the best option for them because we will preserve the vast majority of their current highly successful business model, and nobody else can do that. If Texas wants to protect another Texas school then Oklahoma may not be essential to add. Preserving their game in Dallas would be all that would be required of our schedule makers and those at Texas.
Outside of us their best prospect might be to take the three other Big 12 Texas schools with them to the PAC. If that is the case our card to play is Oklahoma State to land Oklahoma. It's a viable card to play and it is one the Big 10 can't match. Why might that work? Because the state government of Oklahoma will want both schools accounted for in a healthy prosperous conference and because they are practical they will bring pressure to bear upon the OU administration to do what is in the best interest of their state. College Presidents don't make the decisions. The people they work for do whether that is a state, or a board of trustees for a private school. It is big business and decisions can't be made in a vacuum.
This is a practical world. Schools need revenue so thy will react to those needs practically. Schools need fans to fund their athletic programs. They will respond to those fans practically because of that need. Schools need to keep overhead low. They will respond to added travel practically. Maryland's move was not so much a poke in the eye to the ACC as it was a practical move towards revenue at a time when their athletic department could not see its way clear of its debt.
Texas has the opposite priority. The more we make a western division amenable to the Longhorn business model, the more likely it will be that they will find an excuse to join.
And what is practical for us is that we have a plan B. Oklahoma serves our needs about as well as Texas. And they will only require one other school to come.
But I don't think we really want more than two schools unless something really fortuitous comes our way.
Otherwise there to the East sits South Carolina and above them North Carolina another jewel. And all that one requires is a little bit of patience, and it would help to have a little bit of success to the West to encourage them should their conditions ever become uncomfortable.
90% of what I hear posted and of the blogs I read, and the pieces submitted by beat writers, pander to quick prejudices, animosities, and fears for the purpose of being noticed. That's how a 200 million dollar athletic department operates, or even a 100 million dollar athletic department. They are rational businessmen who know that if they don't maintain a successful model it will cost them their jobs. Who know if they alienate their fans they will suffer. And who know the best course if forced to change is the course that requires the least change.
That is why I'm confident that when further realignment occurs that the SEC is in a position of strength. Because for them to join us, means the least overall change from their current business models and also the least of the cultural adjustments for their fans.
This time our strategies in the past have already put us into a position where practicality now suggests that we are the best option if one has to be taken. All that is left to do is be patient, and gracious at least until we're teed up to play.