CSNbbs

(08-09-2019 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

Ken,
I think that both your option 2 and 3 are non-starters.
The only conference that would take both Oklahoma and Texas would be the PAC and then it would be out of survival.
If both went as a pair to either the SEC or the B1G it would alter their cultures to the point that they no longer would be recognized by the original teams in either conference. No commissioner would take that risk.
Oklahoma was not on the B1G's top 20 list when Nebraska was added, and there is no reason to believe that they are now. If they choose to leave the Big 12 the SEC is their most likely landing spot unless they travel to the PAC with Texas.
Texas as we all know isn't going to the SEC and has no reason to join the B1G. Texas already has the ability to schedule home and home games with Ohio State and Michigan and will refuse to waste away in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Texas has three realistic options:
1-stay in the Big 12 with Oklahoma
2-go to the PAC with Oklahoma +2
3-take a partial Notre Dame style membership in the ACC (most likely with TCU in tow).

The premise here is incorrect. Both the SEC and B1G would jump on Texas and Oklahoma pair. The B1G West is right now the forgotten wing, with only Wisconsin a semi-power, while the East has Ohio State Michigan and Penn State (Michigan State is on the Iowa, Wisconsin level).

A B1G West with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa has identity as the Plain States division producing a champion to make the B1G Championship game must see. There is no identity problem.

For the SEC it's similar. You'd have an Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Arkansas wing that gives it a Southwest flavor (LSU goes and probably the Mississippi schools go with these guys or alternately Kentucky and Vandy). This group would provide a meaningful Champion to play an East with Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The East would have an Old SEC flavor, putting rivals Auburn and Georgia back together in the same division, ditto Alabama and Tennessee.

The idea the culture would be hurt having both Texas and Oklahoma in either the B1G or SEC is ridiculous. It would create much clearer East/West identity for the Divisions in those conferences and balance the play between them, as well as create a much more important CCG.

Both schools being flagships and academically are strong fits in these two --almost all flagship schools-- conferences.

Getting both would make the two divisions stronger, and 7 of your football games would be in division - meaning the schedule wont be adding only the heavyweights. I do think it would force the SEC to move to 9 games, since there would be only 1 cross over on an 8 game schedule.

Division-less football works better if you have 15, meaning you just add one. And that would make sense if you just add one, as you'd probably let everybody in the SEC play, say Texas, or everybody in the B1G play, say Oklahoma, in something of a rotation.

If they do go their separate ways, you have to ask, would one of the two conferences add Kansas? Fair question. The B1G IMO might take KU if they got OU, but Texas went SEC. Their 9 game schedule has problems with an odd number of teams, since one gets either only 8 conference games or 10; and I don't think the B1G would like to go to 10 games. The SEC playing 8 would have no problem with 15 and a rotation.

Other options:
The Pac-12 is out of the question for Texas (travel), and doesn't offer enough money to Oklahoma. There is a small chance Texas values being king so much, and is so unhappy with staying in a B12 without OU and possibly also KU, they would seriously consider the ACC. They'd have the king's chair at ACC meetings, edging UNC to the 2nd seat, and they'd also take some of the "special treatment" ND is getting. The ACC is also an 8 game schedule, so a 15th works well there. Of course Texas could make the ACC accept another Texas school like TCU (they'd fit in a league with Miami, Syracuse, BC, Wake and Pitt) so they'd have a partner and not be an outlier like West Virginia. But the complications of the LHN and the very different structure of the ACC contract with ESPN, along with the level of money makes it hard to see how that could be worked out.

Staying is a decent option until 2031 should only Oklahoma leave. The B12 could survive at 9 for 6 years until the LHN ran out. Or Texas could give a thumbs up and live with BYU (or long shot UCF) for 6 years as a 10th. But if Kansas goes with Oklahoma (B1G scenario ... and they give up on Texas), then it's hard to see Texas remain as the only flagship in a conference with only 2nd tier schools.

(08-09-2019 12:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

Ken,
I think that both your option 2 and 3 are non-starters.
The only conference that would take both Oklahoma and Texas would be the PAC and then it would be out of survival.
If both went as a pair to either the SEC or the B1G it would alter their cultures to the point that they no longer would be recognized by the original teams in either conference. No commissioner would take that risk.
Oklahoma was not on the B1G's top 20 list when Nebraska was added, and there is no reason to believe that they are now. If they choose to leave the Big 12 the SEC is their most likely landing spot unless they travel to the PAC with Texas.
Texas as we all know isn't going to the SEC and has no reason to join the B1G. Texas already has the ability to schedule home and home games with Ohio State and Michigan and will refuse to waste away in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Texas has three realistic options:
1-stay in the Big 12 with Oklahoma
2-go to the PAC with Oklahoma +2
3-take a partial Notre Dame style membership in the ACC (most likely with TCU in tow).

The premise here is incorrect. Both the SEC and B1G would jump on Texas and Oklahoma pair. The B1G West is right now the forgotten wing, with only Wisconsin a semi-power, while the East has Ohio State Michigan and Penn State (Michigan State is on the Iowa, Wisconsin level).

In the B1G a West with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa has identity as the Plain States division producing a champion to make the B1G Championship game must see. There is no identity problem.

For the SEC it's similar. You'd have an Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Arkansas wing that gives it a Southwest flavor (LSU goes and probably the Mississippi schools go with these guys or alternately Kentucky and Vandy). This group would provide a meaningful Champion to play an East with Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The East would have an Old SEC flavor, putting rivals Auburn and Georgia back together in the same division, ditto Alabama and Tennessee.

The idea the culture would be hurt having both Texas and Oklahoma in either the B1G or SEC is ridiculous. It would create much clearer East/West identity for the Divisions in those conferences and balance the play between them, as well as create a much more important CCG.

Academically both schools fit well, and being flagships they fit these two almost all flagship school conferences.

Getting both would make the two divisions stronger, and 7 of your football games would be in division - meaning the schedule wont be adding only the heavyweights. I do think it would force the SEC to move to 9 games, since there would be only two cross overs.

Division-less football works better if you have 15, meaning you just add one. And that would make sense if you just add one, as you'd probably let everybody in the SEC play, say Texas, or everybody in the B1G play, say Oklahoma, in something of a rotation.

If they do go their separate ways, you have to ask, would one of the two conferences add Kansas? Fair question. The B1G IMO might take KU if they got OU, but Texas went SEC. Their 9 game schedule has problems with an odd number of teams, since one gets either only 8 conference games or 10; and I don't think the B1G would like to go to 10 games. The SEC playing 8 would have no problem with 15 and a rotation.

Other options:
The Pac-12 is out of the question for Texas (travel), and doesn't offer enough money to Oklahoma. There is a small chance Texas values being king so much, and is so unhappy with staying in a B12 without OU and possibly also KU, that would seriously consider the ACC. They'd have the king's chair at ACC meetings, edging UNC to the 2nd seat, and they'd also take some of the "special treatment" ND is getting. The ACC is also an 8 game schedule, so a 15th works well there. Of course Texas could make the ACC accept another Texas school like TCU (they'd fit in a league with Miami, Syracuse, BC, Wake and Pitt) so they'd have a partner and not be an outlier like West Virginia. But the complications of the LHN and the very different structure of the ACC contract with ESPN, along with the level of money makes it hard to see how that could be worked out.

Staying is a decent option until 2031 should only Oklahoma leave. The B12 could survive at 9 for 6 years until the LHN ran out. Or Texas could give a thumbs up and live with BYU (or long shot UCF) for 6 years as a 10th. But if Kansas goes with Oklahoma (B1G scenario ... and they give up on Texas), then it's hard to see Texas remain as the only flagship in a conference with only 2nd tier schools.

Stugray, i Agree with most of what you say except, two of your other options.

IMO the PAC is not out of the question for Texas or Oklahoma. The travel problem is solved if at least four teams from the Big12 go to the PAC. If four teams go, then you would have an eight team division....the four Big12 schools plus Colorado, Utah and the Arizona schools with only one time zone difference. If KU and KSU go, then you could have three six team divisions. If both OU and Texas join the PAC the money should be acceptable. The LHN could probably be worked out.

Also, as I have pointed out to you previously, Texas will not go to the ACC and be on an island, TCU as a travel partner helps the ACC schools, but it still leaves Texas on an island with one school. IMO that will never happen.

If OU leaves and Texas does not, then I would look for Texas to go Indy in football and arrange to leave their other sports in the Big12, like
the arrangement Notre Dame has with the ACC.

(08-09-2019 02:49 PM)texoma Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 12:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

Ken,
I think that both your option 2 and 3 are non-starters.
The only conference that would take both Oklahoma and Texas would be the PAC and then it would be out of survival.
If both went as a pair to either the SEC or the B1G it would alter their cultures to the point that they no longer would be recognized by the original teams in either conference. No commissioner would take that risk.
Oklahoma was not on the B1G's top 20 list when Nebraska was added, and there is no reason to believe that they are now. If they choose to leave the Big 12 the SEC is their most likely landing spot unless they travel to the PAC with Texas.
Texas as we all know isn't going to the SEC and has no reason to join the B1G. Texas already has the ability to schedule home and home games with Ohio State and Michigan and will refuse to waste away in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Texas has three realistic options:
1-stay in the Big 12 with Oklahoma
2-go to the PAC with Oklahoma +2
3-take a partial Notre Dame style membership in the ACC (most likely with TCU in tow).

The premise here is incorrect. Both the SEC and B1G would jump on Texas and Oklahoma pair. The B1G West is right now the forgotten wing, with only Wisconsin a semi-power, while the East has Ohio State Michigan and Penn State (Michigan State is on the Iowa, Wisconsin level).

In the B1G a West with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa has identity as the Plain States division producing a champion to make the B1G Championship game must see. There is no identity problem.

For the SEC it's similar. You'd have an Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Arkansas wing that gives it a Southwest flavor (LSU goes and probably the Mississippi schools go with these guys or alternately Kentucky and Vandy). This group would provide a meaningful Champion to play an East with Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The East would have an Old SEC flavor, putting rivals Auburn and Georgia back together in the same division, ditto Alabama and Tennessee.

The idea the culture would be hurt having both Texas and Oklahoma in either the B1G or SEC is ridiculous. It would create much clearer East/West identity for the Divisions in those conferences and balance the play between them, as well as create a much more important CCG.

Academically both schools fit well, and being flagships they fit these two almost all flagship school conferences.

Getting both would make the two divisions stronger, and 7 of your football games would be in division - meaning the schedule wont be adding only the heavyweights. I do think it would force the SEC to move to 9 games, since there would be only two cross overs.

Division-less football works better if you have 15, meaning you just add one. And that would make sense if you just add one, as you'd probably let everybody in the SEC play, say Texas, or everybody in the B1G play, say Oklahoma, in something of a rotation.

If they do go their separate ways, you have to ask, would one of the two conferences add Kansas? Fair question. The B1G IMO might take KU if they got OU, but Texas went SEC. Their 9 game schedule has problems with an odd number of teams, since one gets either only 8 conference games or 10; and I don't think the B1G would like to go to 10 games. The SEC playing 8 would have no problem with 15 and a rotation.

Other options:
The Pac-12 is out of the question for Texas (travel), and doesn't offer enough money to Oklahoma. There is a small chance Texas values being king so much, and is so unhappy with staying in a B12 without OU and possibly also KU, that would seriously consider the ACC. They'd have the king's chair at ACC meetings, edging UNC to the 2nd seat, and they'd also take some of the "special treatment" ND is getting. The ACC is also an 8 game schedule, so a 15th works well there. Of course Texas could make the ACC accept another Texas school like TCU (they'd fit in a league with Miami, Syracuse, BC, Wake and Pitt) so they'd have a partner and not be an outlier like West Virginia. But the complications of the LHN and the very different structure of the ACC contract with ESPN, along with the level of money makes it hard to see how that could be worked out.

Staying is a decent option until 2031 should only Oklahoma leave. The B12 could survive at 9 for 6 years until the LHN ran out. Or Texas could give a thumbs up and live with BYU (or long shot UCF) for 6 years as a 10th. But if Kansas goes with Oklahoma (B1G scenario ... and they give up on Texas), then it's hard to see Texas remain as the only flagship in a conference with only 2nd tier schools.

Stugray, i Agree with most of what you say except, two of your other options.

IMO the PAC is not out of the question for Texas or Oklahoma. The travel problem is solved if at least four teams from the Big12 go to the PAC. If four teams go, then you would have an eight team division....the four Big12 schools plus Colorado, Utah and the Arizona schools with only one time zone difference. If KU and KSU go, then you could have three six team divisions. If both OU and Texas join the PAC the money should be acceptable. The LHN could probably be worked out.

Also, as I have pointed out to you previously, Texas will not go to the ACC and be on an island, TCU as a travel partner helps the ACC schools, but it still leaves Texas on an island with one school. IMO that will never happen.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-869587.html
This link is to the WSJ Economic Impact Assessments for Universities as it relates to their region of influence. Some say this is the total value of the school, but it is measured in the various ways they impact businesses outside of their athletic department's earnings.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-871659.html
This is the link to the Gross Total Revenue that schools produce. Media money is but a fraction of it. True strength comes in the ability of the school to sell its product and produce loyalty that begets significant donations.

I suggest that everyone not already acquainted with these numbers should study them and ponder their importance.

You will note that the PAC in particular is relatively weak in every facet and that the key Big 12 schools account for more than 2/3rds of the total economic impact valuation of the Big 12 which by the way is greater than that of the entire PAC12.

You will also note that the top product of the Big 12 accounts for 1/3rd of all the revenue received by Big 12 schools and that again it is much greater than what the PAC schools bring in.

It is merely wishful thinking to believe that any merger of the top Big 12 product with the PAC will result in anything but a downgrade in the revenues of the top Big 12 schools. And for the record there are two top Big 12 schools: Texas and Oklahoma. Those two so dwarf the other Big 12 schools in metrics that to add 2 or even 4 more Big 12 schools to a PAC merger only further diminishes the total revenue that such a merger would generate and even if it is only Texas and Oklahoma that are added to the PAC it is an impossibility that they would earn more than they do in the Big 12.

Why? Attendance is worse in the PAC. Ratings are worse in the PAC. The ability of the PAC schools to generate a traveling crowd is less than that of Texas and Oklahoma. The travel is greater and for minor sports is a major revenue drag. And the economic impact and gross total revenue which indicates the reach and economic depth of a school is much less in the PAC.

In short it is an impossibility by any carrier pay model in existence that the move would benefit Texas or Oklahoma.

The entire same is true of any move by either Texas or Oklahoma to the ACC.

Why? Their numbers are a virtual repeat of those of the PAC since those two conferences battle each other for last place in all metrics in the P5.

Therefore the options are three:

Stay put. In this option the key is Oklahoma. If Kansas leaves they add B.Y.U. and get healthier in the main revenue sport, football. If Oklahoma leaves it takes almost 1 billion in economic impact with them, one of only two top brands in football, potentially the best football revenue event (the RRR), and the last rival that Texas fans give a hoot about playing. If Oklahoma stays put Texas cements the Big 12. Kansas can do what it likes.


Move to the Big 10
or,
Move to the SEC.

In either of these scenarios the addition of just 1 of Oklahoma or Texas to either of these conference coupled with the SEC's projected T1 increase and the Big 10's like 5% plus bump with a new contract in 2024 means that the payout in the SEC could well be 56 million (or more) + 3 million per school for the addition of either Texas or Oklahoma which = 59 million plus or the 54 million for the Big 10 plus at least 5% in pay bump + 3 million for the addition of either Texas or Oklahoma= 60 million plus.

The Sooners currently earn 38.7 from Big 12 media rights plus their T3 which is roughly 7 million (average for the contract) so 45.7 million plus another million or so for T3 escalators, so roughly 48 million. Would Oklahoma move for an addition 11 to 12 million or more?

The Horns earn 38.7 plus around 17 million right now for the LHN, so roughly 56 million. Their incentive in any of this to is to keep their scheduling format and business model and they are less likely to leave unless Oklahoma bails.

The Sooners can earn significantly more by moving to either the SEC or Big 10 and the money won't be that different in either.

The Horns if forced to move at least would make enough to cover the LHN revenue. And there are easy work arounds even if they want that contract honored.

Those are the only 3 options that are currently available to Texas and Oklahoma where they make a little to a lot more depending on the school, and where they are moving to a conference where there will be a lot more schools above the conference average Gross Total Revenue and where the economic impact valuations of all involved improve.

The SEC's valuation is North of 7 billion and the Big 10's is north of 5 billion. The Big 12's is around 3.5 billion. The PAC's is at 3 billion and ACC's ~ 2 billion.

If the decision to move is made it will be based on pure business advantages in doing so. These are billion dollar enterprises that will make a solid business decision. There won't be any of this piss ant fans say their school will never do this or that based on some emotion or some past comments of leaders playing to the emotions of their fan base. Teams of attorneys, the A.D.'s, the network carriers, and college presidents will be the only voices listened to with a nod to the most wealthy of donors.

I don't know how many threads and posts are wasted suggesting anything else. Will academics play a part? Absolutely! But they will not be deciding factor unless all other business factors come to the same relative sum between the competing conferences.

Now, I also urge you to use these numbers to see who it is that the SEC and Big 10 will consider.

Without raiding each other there are only 3 schools that hands down would be no brainer additions to either: (1) Texas, (2) Oklahoma, (3) Notre Dame.

Since the latter is tied up with a GOR until 2037 rule them out period.

So if there is any realignment at all in 2023-5 for the P5 it will involved Texas and/or Oklahoma. If they leave for separate conferences then all you need to do to find the list of possible travel mates (if we don't go divisionless) is to take the gross total revenue of the travel mate and add it to the gross total revenue of (Texas/Oklahoma) and divide by two and see if it exceeds the conference average of the Big 10 or SEC. If it does then that school is a possible travel companion. If it doesn't they are not. Repeat the process with the WSJ economic impact numbers.

There are your answers.

In 2037 even if the ACC schools become available the likelihood is that if the SEC and Big 10 split Texas and Oklahoma there still won't be a single school in the ACC (outside of N.D.) that would add enough value to create a move threat. By then Florida State and Clemson will likely not add enough value to the Big 10 or SEC to be considered under any of the current pay models.

So, if Texas and Oklahoma leave, with or without travel companions, and one moves to the SEC and the other to the Big 10, the result will be a P4 in which there are two conferences paying at or near 60 million per school, and two conferences paying at or near 40 million per school. In others words we will have a P2 plus a sub P2.

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

If OU leaves the Big 12, it's debatable as to what UT does. However, if UT leaves first, OU is certainly out of there too.

(08-09-2019 03:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

If OU leaves the Big 12, it's debatable as to what UT does. However, if UT leaves first, OU is certainly out of there too.

Not really. Without OU Texas has nothing left to hang a 10 gallon hat on with regard to schedule. They're gone too. It's a quid pro quo. If one leaves so does the other. The only question then is do they leave together or separately. If they leave separately then in state politics for either will likely be the reason.

For instance if Texas wants to protect Tech and leaves first to the SEC then Oklahoma has limited options to move with OSU. If folks in Oklahoma politics grasp this then it is possible that Oklahoma leaves first with OSU. That would not necessarily limit Texas's options but it would preserve OU's chance to leave with OSU.

The problem for OU would be whether the SEC would offer OU and OSU if they thought that OU leaving first to say the Big 10 would spring UT and TTU?

Both the SEC and Big 10 will want OU and UT and nobody else so the state leverage will likely come into play. The interesting part will be who blinks first? The Big 10 like the SEC will prefer Texas. Would they jump the shark and offer Texas and Tech? If they do the SEC still gets the better pair with Oklahoma and Kansas. If they offer OU and KU then the SEC gets Texas and a buddy.

It'll be fun to watch. But for it to happen OU is the one that will most likely have to want to leave. Texas would be content to stay with the Sooners because UT has the benefits advantage in the conference. If OU leaves then they take 10% of the value of the Big 12 with them and if Kansas tags along it's more like 15-6%.

And if the SEC wants Texas they might refuse the Oklahoma pair to make it happen. With Texas and Tech the SEC has 3 T2 games a week on average that can draw from a market of 28 million. That's a lot of bump in the value of the T2 portion of their property. Plus it gives them the hammer for ad revenue in that state. So while OU is a great brand if we can't have both we earn more with Texas.

(08-09-2019 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 03:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

If OU leaves the Big 12, it's debatable as to what UT does. However, if UT leaves first, OU is certainly out of there too.

Not really. Without OU Texas has nothing left to hang a 10 gallon hat on with regard to schedule. They're gone too. It's a quid pro quo. If one leaves so does the other. The only question then is do they leave together or separately. If they leave separately then in state politics for either will likely be the reason.

For instance if Texas wants to protect Tech and leaves first to the SEC then Oklahoma has limited options to move with OSU. If folks in Oklahoma politics grasp this then it is possible that Oklahoma leaves first with OSU. That would not necessarily limit Texas's options but it would preserve OU's chance to leave with OSU.

The problem for OU would be whether the SEC would offer OU and OSU if they thought that OU leaving first to say the Big 10 would spring UT and TTU?

Both the SEC and Big 10 will want OU and UT and nobody else so the state leverage will likely come into play. The interesting part will be who blinks first? The Big 10 like the SEC will prefer Texas. Would they jump the shark and offer Texas and Tech? If they do the SEC still gets the better pair with Oklahoma and Kansas. If they offer OU and KU then the SEC gets Texas and a buddy.

It'll be fun to watch. But for it to happen OU is the one that will most likely have to want to leave. Texas would be content to stay with the Sooners because UT has the benefits advantage in the conference. If OU leaves then they take 10% of the value of the Big 12 with them and if Kansas tags along it's more like 15-6%.

And if the SEC wants Texas they might refuse the Oklahoma pair to make it happen. With Texas and Tech the SEC has 3 T2 games a week on average that can draw from a market of 28 million. That's a lot of bump in the value of the T2 portion of their property. Plus it gives them the hammer for ad revenue in that state. So while OU is a great brand if we can't have both we earn more with Texas.

What I mean is that Texas could potentially stay with the Big 12, although their FB would likely go indy if OU left. Kind of like how BYU reacted to the Pac picking Utah.

(08-09-2019 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 02:49 PM)texoma Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 12:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

Ken,
I think that both your option 2 and 3 are non-starters.
The only conference that would take both Oklahoma and Texas would be the PAC and then it would be out of survival.
If both went as a pair to either the SEC or the B1G it would alter their cultures to the point that they no longer would be recognized by the original teams in either conference. No commissioner would take that risk.
Oklahoma was not on the B1G's top 20 list when Nebraska was added, and there is no reason to believe that they are now. If they choose to leave the Big 12 the SEC is their most likely landing spot unless they travel to the PAC with Texas.
Texas as we all know isn't going to the SEC and has no reason to join the B1G. Texas already has the ability to schedule home and home games with Ohio State and Michigan and will refuse to waste away in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Texas has three realistic options:
1-stay in the Big 12 with Oklahoma
2-go to the PAC with Oklahoma +2
3-take a partial Notre Dame style membership in the ACC (most likely with TCU in tow).

The premise here is incorrect. Both the SEC and B1G would jump on Texas and Oklahoma pair. The B1G West is right now the forgotten wing, with only Wisconsin a semi-power, while the East has Ohio State Michigan and Penn State (Michigan State is on the Iowa, Wisconsin level).

In the B1G a West with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Iowa has identity as the Plain States division producing a champion to make the B1G Championship game must see. There is no identity problem.

For the SEC it's similar. You'd have an Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Arkansas wing that gives it a Southwest flavor (LSU goes and probably the Mississippi schools go with these guys or alternately Kentucky and Vandy). This group would provide a meaningful Champion to play an East with Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The East would have an Old SEC flavor, putting rivals Auburn and Georgia back together in the same division, ditto Alabama and Tennessee.

The idea the culture would be hurt having both Texas and Oklahoma in either the B1G or SEC is ridiculous. It would create much clearer East/West identity for the Divisions in those conferences and balance the play between them, as well as create a much more important CCG.

Academically both schools fit well, and being flagships they fit these two almost all flagship school conferences.

Getting both would make the two divisions stronger, and 7 of your football games would be in division - meaning the schedule wont be adding only the heavyweights. I do think it would force the SEC to move to 9 games, since there would be only two cross overs.

Division-less football works better if you have 15, meaning you just add one. And that would make sense if you just add one, as you'd probably let everybody in the SEC play, say Texas, or everybody in the B1G play, say Oklahoma, in something of a rotation.

If they do go their separate ways, you have to ask, would one of the two conferences add Kansas? Fair question. The B1G IMO might take KU if they got OU, but Texas went SEC. Their 9 game schedule has problems with an odd number of teams, since one gets either only 8 conference games or 10; and I don't think the B1G would like to go to 10 games. The SEC playing 8 would have no problem with 15 and a rotation.

Other options:
The Pac-12 is out of the question for Texas (travel), and doesn't offer enough money to Oklahoma. There is a small chance Texas values being king so much, and is so unhappy with staying in a B12 without OU and possibly also KU, that would seriously consider the ACC. They'd have the king's chair at ACC meetings, edging UNC to the 2nd seat, and they'd also take some of the "special treatment" ND is getting. The ACC is also an 8 game schedule, so a 15th works well there. Of course Texas could make the ACC accept another Texas school like TCU (they'd fit in a league with Miami, Syracuse, BC, Wake and Pitt) so they'd have a partner and not be an outlier like West Virginia. But the complications of the LHN and the very different structure of the ACC contract with ESPN, along with the level of money makes it hard to see how that could be worked out.

Staying is a decent option until 2031 should only Oklahoma leave. The B12 could survive at 9 for 6 years until the LHN ran out. Or Texas could give a thumbs up and live with BYU (or long shot UCF) for 6 years as a 10th. But if Kansas goes with Oklahoma (B1G scenario ... and they give up on Texas), then it's hard to see Texas remain as the only flagship in a conference with only 2nd tier schools.

Stugray, i Agree with most of what you say except, two of your other options.

IMO the PAC is not out of the question for Texas or Oklahoma. The travel problem is solved if at least four teams from the Big12 go to the PAC. If four teams go, then you would have an eight team division....the four Big12 schools plus Colorado, Utah and the Arizona schools with only one time zone difference. If KU and KSU go, then you could have three six team divisions. If both OU and Texas join the PAC the money should be acceptable. The LHN could probably be worked out.

Also, as I have pointed out to you previously, Texas will not go to the ACC and be on an island, TCU as a travel partner helps the ACC schools, but it still leaves Texas on an island with one school. IMO that will never happen.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-869587.html
This link is to the WSJ Economic Impact Assessments for Universities as it relates to their region of influence. Some say this is the total value of the school, but it is measured in the various ways they impact businesses outside of their athletic department's earnings.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-871659.html
This is the link to the Gross Total Revenue that schools produce. Media money is but a fraction of it. True strength comes in the ability of the school to sell its product and produce loyalty that begets significant donations.

I suggest that everyone not already acquainted with these numbers should study them and ponder their importance.

You will note that the PAC in particular is relatively weak in every facet and that the key Big 12 schools account for more than 2/3rds of the total economic impact valuation of the Big 12 which by the way is greater than that of the entire PAC12.

You will also note that the top product of the Big 12 accounts for 1/3rd of all the revenue received by Big 12 schools and that again it is much greater than what the PAC schools bring in.

It is merely wishful thinking to believe that any merger of the top Big 12 product with the PAC will result in anything but a downgrade in the revenues of the top Big 12 schools. And for the record there are two top Big 12 schools: Texas and Oklahoma. Those two so dwarf the other Big 12 schools in metrics that to add 2 or even 4 more Big 12 schools to a PAC merger only further diminishes the total revenue that such a merger would generate and even if it is only Texas and Oklahoma that are added to the PAC it is an impossibility that they would earn more than they do in the Big 12.

Why? Attendance is worse in the PAC. Ratings are worse in the PAC. The ability of the PAC schools to generate a traveling crowd is less than that of Texas and Oklahoma. The travel is greater and for minor sports is a major revenue drag. And the economic impact and gross total revenue which indicates the reach and economic depth of a school is much less in the PAC.

In short it is an impossibility by any carrier pay model in existence that the move would benefit Texas or Oklahoma.

The entire same is true of any move by either Texas or Oklahoma to the ACC.

Why? Their numbers are a virtual repeat of those of the PAC since those two conferences battle each other for last place in all metrics in the P5.

Therefore the options are three:

Stay put. In this option the key is Oklahoma. If Kansas leaves they add B.Y.U. and get healthier in the main revenue sport, football. If Oklahoma leaves it takes almost 1 billion in economic impact with them, one of only two top brands in football, potentially the best football revenue event (the RRR), and the last rival that Texas fans give a hoot about playing. If Oklahoma stays put Texas cements the Big 12. Kansas can do what it likes.


Move to the Big 10
or,
Move to the SEC.

In either of these scenarios the addition of just 1 of Oklahoma or Texas to either of these conference coupled with the SEC's projected T1 increase and the Big 10's like 5% plus bump with a new contract in 2024 means that the payout in the SEC could well be 56 million (or more) + 3 million per school for the addition of either Texas or Oklahoma which = 59 million plus or the 54 million for the Big 10 plus at least 5% in pay bump + 3 million for the addition of either Texas or Oklahoma= 60 million plus.

The Sooners currently earn 38.7 from Big 12 media rights plus their T3 which is roughly 7 million (average for the contract) so 45.7 million plus another million or so for T3 escalators, so roughly 48 million. Would Oklahoma move for an addition 11 to 12 million or more?

The Horns earn 38.7 plus around 17 million right now for the LHN, so roughly 56 million. Their incentive in any of this to is to keep their scheduling format and business model and they are less likely to leave unless Oklahoma bails.

The Sooners can earn significantly more by moving to either the SEC or Big 10 and the money won't be that different in either.

The Horns if forced to move at least would make enough to cover the LHN revenue. And there are easy work arounds even if they want that contract honored.

Those are the only 3 options that are currently available to Texas and Oklahoma where they make a little to a lot more depending on the school, and where they are moving to a conference where there will be a lot more schools above the conference average Gross Total Revenue and where the economic impact valuations of all involved improve.

The SEC's valuation is North of 7 billion and the Big 10's is north of 5 billion. The Big 12's is around 3.5 billion. The PAC's is at 3 billion and ACC's ~ 2 billion.

If the decision to move is made it will be based on pure business advantages in doing so. These are billion dollar enterprises that will make a solid business decision. There won't be any of this piss ant fans say their school will never do this or that based on some emotion or some past comments of leaders playing to the emotions of their fan base. Teams of attorneys, the A.D.'s, the network carriers, and college presidents will be the only voices listened to with a nod to the most wealthy of donors.

I don't know how many threads and posts are wasted suggesting anything else. Will academics play a part? Absolutely! But they will not be deciding factor unless all other business factors come to the same relative sum between the competing conferences.

Now, I also urge you to use these numbers to see who it is that the SEC and Big 10 will consider.

Without raiding each other there are only 3 schools that hands down would be no brainer additions to either: (1) Texas, (2) Oklahoma, (3) Notre Dame.

Since the latter is tied up with a GOR until 2037 rule them out period.

So if there is any realignment at all in 2023-5 for the P5 it will involved Texas and/or Oklahoma. If they leave for separate conferences then all you need to do to find the list of possible travel mates (if we don't go divisionless) is to take the gross total revenue of the travel mate and add it to the gross total revenue of (Texas/Oklahoma) and divide by two and see if it exceeds the conference average of the Big 10 or SEC. If it does then that school is a possible travel companion. If it doesn't they are not. Repeat the process with the WSJ economic impact numbers.

There are your answers.

In 2037 even if the ACC schools become available the likelihood is that if the SEC and Big 10 split Texas and Oklahoma there still won't be a single school in the ACC (outside of N.D.) that would add enough value to create a move threat. By then Florida State and Clemson will likely not add enough value to the Big 10 or SEC to be considered under any of the current pay models.

So, if Texas and Oklahoma leave, with or without travel companions, and one moves to the SEC and the other to the Big 10, the result will be a P4 in which there are two conferences paying at or near 60 million per school, and two conferences paying at or near 40 million per school. In others words we will have a P2 plus a sub P2.

The possible moves have been narrowed and brought into fine focus (do we all agree?) The underdog competing argument about realigment for academics is all that stands between JRSEC and Shug Jordan Prize in Economics. These financal forces will likely prevail but I think it is important to keep alive the pesky argument that Texas may prefer an academic alliance with the B1G. Hey, it's within the realm of possibility.

I'm grateful that somebody finally helped me debunk the "Texas would never.. " argument.

Wow, college football makes a lot of money.

(08-09-2019 05:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 03:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

If OU leaves the Big 12, it's debatable as to what UT does. However, if UT leaves first, OU is certainly out of there too.

Not really. Without OU Texas has nothing left to hang a 10 gallon hat on with regard to schedule. They're gone too. It's a quid pro quo. If one leaves so does the other. The only question then is do they leave together or separately. If they leave separately then in state politics for either will likely be the reason.

For instance if Texas wants to protect Tech and leaves first to the SEC then Oklahoma has limited options to move with OSU. If folks in Oklahoma politics grasp this then it is possible that Oklahoma leaves first with OSU. That would not necessarily limit Texas's options but it would preserve OU's chance to leave with OSU.

The problem for OU would be whether the SEC would offer OU and OSU if they thought that OU leaving first to say the Big 10 would spring UT and TTU?

Both the SEC and Big 10 will want OU and UT and nobody else so the state leverage will likely come into play. The interesting part will be who blinks first? The Big 10 like the SEC will prefer Texas. Would they jump the shark and offer Texas and Tech? If they do the SEC still gets the better pair with Oklahoma and Kansas. If they offer OU and KU then the SEC gets Texas and a buddy.

It'll be fun to watch. But for it to happen OU is the one that will most likely have to want to leave. Texas would be content to stay with the Sooners because UT has the benefits advantage in the conference. If OU leaves then they take 10% of the value of the Big 12 with them and if Kansas tags along it's more like 15-6%.

And if the SEC wants Texas they might refuse the Oklahoma pair to make it happen. With Texas and Tech the SEC has 3 T2 games a week on average that can draw from a market of 28 million. That's a lot of bump in the value of the T2 portion of their property. Plus it gives them the hammer for ad revenue in that state. So while OU is a great brand if we can't have both we earn more with Texas.

What I mean is that Texas could potentially stay with the Big 12, although their FB would likely go indy if OU left. Kind of like how BYU reacted to the Pac picking Utah.

Have you stopped to think what going independent for football would mean for Texas?

Texas's T3 will bring them ~ 17 million. The won't be part of an ACCN because it won't pay anywhere near that.

What is 5/12ths of an ACC schedule worth? Let's say the ACC earns 3 million for their network in their first year (about what the SECN made) that would make the ACC payouts around 32 million. That would be worth 13.3 million if Texas participated in all sports and only 5 games in football.

So now Texas is at 30.3 million. They have 6 ballgames left to sell. Remember 1 game is part of the LHN. Of those 6 games 2 will be against G5's. Lets give them 2.5 million for each of those which is generous.

Now they are at 35 million and have 4 P games left to sell. Let's assume for the sake of argument they can get 5 million per game for those (still generous).

Texas would be exactly where they are in the Big 12 at 55 million only they wouldn't have a place to play minor sports for which travel will become a bigger and bigger issue.

Now Texas can choose to go that route, or they can choose to join the SEC where they will make between 59-60 million. Will be the headliner for their division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M & Texas Tech. With this alignment they keep the RRR with OU that heads to the B1G.

The get their old rivals back with better conference games, keep OU, and still have at least 3 games with which to schedule other non-P Texas schools or other national brands which drives up ticket interest and makes them more money, and they have a home for minor sports that isn't that much farther than the Old Big 12 North was and they get a raise of 10% to boot.

If Texas really really wants to play the academic card they have the same deal in the Big 10. But for the record Texas has never really been concerned about being in a better academic league. The old SWC was worse than the SEC academically and the their best association the Big 12 lost 4 founding AAU members and Texas didn't flinch when reloading with T.C.U. (another Texas school to play) and WVU (hardly an academic stalwart).

So this fantasy notion that Texas will go independent for essentially no raise and for a lot more headaches with minor sports just doesn't seem reasonable or feasible especially when those they contract to play 5 times a year have no history with them.

If Texas stays with the Big 12 they'll have to replace Oklahoma with a B.Y.U. or one of the Florida twins and removing 12 Oklahoma vs Big 12 games significantly reduces the value of the Big 12 contract. Now you have a few T1 Texas games to televise and a whole bunch of T3 material and some but less T2 material depending upon who might get hot from the other 8 and that's about it. It would be nothing appealing to the season ticket holders in Austin. So I don't see that either.

(08-09-2019 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 05:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 03:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 08:48 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]My sense is that OU and UT will get together before their GoR expires and make a decision from among several options.

Option 1. Stay together in the Big 12

Option 2. Stay together in the SEC

Option 3. Stay together in the B1G

Option 4. Part ways

Of these, I think Option 3 is the least likely. I believe the SEC would accept them as a pair. They would make that league a behemoth - head and shoulders above every other conference. The downside is that neither of these schools would be dominant in their new conference, and would have a much more difficult path to the CFP and even NY6.

If they choose to part ways, I believe only one of them would leave the Big 12. To me it would make more sense for UT and Texas Tech to go to the SEC, leaving the Big 12 at 8 members. They respond by adding UCF and staying at 9 members (and bringing the AAC down to 10). No other moves are likely in this scenario.

The other possibility is for OU and Oklahoma State to go to the SEC. That still puts UCF in play for the B12.

But at the end of the day, Option 1 still makes the most sense of all to me. In that case, I don't anticipate any changes to the P5 from the current alignment.

If OU leaves the Big 12, it's debatable as to what UT does. However, if UT leaves first, OU is certainly out of there too.

Not really. Without OU Texas has nothing left to hang a 10 gallon hat on with regard to schedule. They're gone too. It's a quid pro quo. If one leaves so does the other. The only question then is do they leave together or separately. If they leave separately then in state politics for either will likely be the reason.

For instance if Texas wants to protect Tech and leaves first to the SEC then Oklahoma has limited options to move with OSU. If folks in Oklahoma politics grasp this then it is possible that Oklahoma leaves first with OSU. That would not necessarily limit Texas's options but it would preserve OU's chance to leave with OSU.

The problem for OU would be whether the SEC would offer OU and OSU if they thought that OU leaving first to say the Big 10 would spring UT and TTU?

Both the SEC and Big 10 will want OU and UT and nobody else so the state leverage will likely come into play. The interesting part will be who blinks first? The Big 10 like the SEC will prefer Texas. Would they jump the shark and offer Texas and Tech? If they do the SEC still gets the better pair with Oklahoma and Kansas. If they offer OU and KU then the SEC gets Texas and a buddy.

It'll be fun to watch. But for it to happen OU is the one that will most likely have to want to leave. Texas would be content to stay with the Sooners because UT has the benefits advantage in the conference. If OU leaves then they take 10% of the value of the Big 12 with them and if Kansas tags along it's more like 15-6%.

And if the SEC wants Texas they might refuse the Oklahoma pair to make it happen. With Texas and Tech the SEC has 3 T2 games a week on average that can draw from a market of 28 million. That's a lot of bump in the value of the T2 portion of their property. Plus it gives them the hammer for ad revenue in that state. So while OU is a great brand if we can't have both we earn more with Texas.

What I mean is that Texas could potentially stay with the Big 12, although their FB would likely go indy if OU left. Kind of like how BYU reacted to the Pac picking Utah.

Have you stopped to think what going independent for football would mean for Texas?

Texas's T3 will bring them ~ 17 million. The won't be part of an ACCN because it won't pay anywhere near that.

What is 5/12ths of an ACC schedule worth? Let's say the ACC earns 3 million for their network in their first year (about what the SECN made) that would make the ACC payouts around 32 million. That would be worth 13.3 million if Texas participated in all sports and only 5 games in football.

So now Texas is at 30.3 million. They have 6 ballgames left to sell. Remember 1 game is part of the LHN. Of those 6 games 2 will be against G5's. Lets give them 2.5 million for each of those which is generous.

Now they are at 35 million and have 4 P games left to sell. Let's assume for the sake of argument they can get 5 million per game for those (still generous).

Texas would be exactly where they are in the Big 12 at 55 million only they wouldn't have a place to play minor sports for which travel will become a bigger and bigger issue.

Now Texas can choose to go that route, or they can choose to join the SEC where they will make between 59-60 million. Will be the headliner for their division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M & Texas Tech. With this alignment they keep the RRR with OU that heads to the B1G.

The get their old rivals back with better conference games, keep OU, and still have at least 3 games with which to schedule other non-P Texas schools or other national brands which drives up ticket interest and makes them more money, and they have a home for minor sports that isn't that much farther than the Old Big 12 North was and they get a raise of 10% to boot.

If Texas really really wants to play the academic card they have the same deal in the Big 10. But for the record Texas has never really been concerned about being in a better academic league. The old SWC was worse than the SEC academically and the their best association the Big 12 lost 4 founding AAU members and Texas didn't flinch when reloading with T.C.U. (another Texas school to play) and WVU (hardly an academic stalwart).

So this fantasy notion that Texas will go independent for essentially no raise and for a lot more headaches with minor sports just doesn't seem reasonable or feasible especially when those they contract to play 5 times a year have no history with them.

If Texas stays with the Big 12 they'll have to replace Oklahoma with a B.Y.U. or one of the Florida twins and removing 12 Oklahoma vs Big 12 games significantly reduces the value of the Big 12 contract. Now you have a few T1 Texas games to televise and a whole bunch of T3 material and some but less T2 material depending upon who might get hot from the other 8 and that's about it. It would be nothing appealing to the season ticket holders in Austin. So I don't see that either.

I said UT would stay with the Big 12 but go independent in football.

(08-09-2019 06:26 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 05:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2019 03:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]If OU leaves the Big 12, it's debatable as to what UT does. However, if UT leaves first, OU is certainly out of there too.

Not really. Without OU Texas has nothing left to hang a 10 gallon hat on with regard to schedule. They're gone too. It's a quid pro quo. If one leaves so does the other. The only question then is do they leave together or separately. If they leave separately then in state politics for either will likely be the reason.

For instance if Texas wants to protect Tech and leaves first to the SEC then Oklahoma has limited options to move with OSU. If folks in Oklahoma politics grasp this then it is possible that Oklahoma leaves first with OSU. That would not necessarily limit Texas's options but it would preserve OU's chance to leave with OSU.

The problem for OU would be whether the SEC would offer OU and OSU if they thought that OU leaving first to say the Big 10 would spring UT and TTU?

Both the SEC and Big 10 will want OU and UT and nobody else so the state leverage will likely come into play. The interesting part will be who blinks first? The Big 10 like the SEC will prefer Texas. Would they jump the shark and offer Texas and Tech? If they do the SEC still gets the better pair with Oklahoma and Kansas. If they offer OU and KU then the SEC gets Texas and a buddy.

It'll be fun to watch. But for it to happen OU is the one that will most likely have to want to leave. Texas would be content to stay with the Sooners because UT has the benefits advantage in the conference. If OU leaves then they take 10% of the value of the Big 12 with them and if Kansas tags along it's more like 15-6%.

And if the SEC wants Texas they might refuse the Oklahoma pair to make it happen. With Texas and Tech the SEC has 3 T2 games a week on average that can draw from a market of 28 million. That's a lot of bump in the value of the T2 portion of their property. Plus it gives them the hammer for ad revenue in that state. So while OU is a great brand if we can't have both we earn more with Texas.

What I mean is that Texas could potentially stay with the Big 12, although their FB would likely go indy if OU left. Kind of like how BYU reacted to the Pac picking Utah.

Have you stopped to think what going independent for football would mean for Texas?

Texas's T3 will bring them ~ 17 million. The won't be part of an ACCN because it won't pay anywhere near that.

What is 5/12ths of an ACC schedule worth? Let's say the ACC earns 3 million for their network in their first year (about what the SECN made) that would make the ACC payouts around 32 million. That would be worth 13.3 million if Texas participated in all sports and only 5 games in football.

So now Texas is at 30.3 million. They have 6 ballgames left to sell. Remember 1 game is part of the LHN. Of those 6 games 2 will be against G5's. Lets give them 2.5 million for each of those which is generous.

Now they are at 35 million and have 4 P games left to sell. Let's assume for the sake of argument they can get 5 million per game for those (still generous).

Texas would be exactly where they are in the Big 12 at 55 million only they wouldn't have a place to play minor sports for which travel will become a bigger and bigger issue.

Now Texas can choose to go that route, or they can choose to join the SEC where they will make between 59-60 million. Will be the headliner for their division: Arkansas, L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss St., Missouri, Texas A&M & Texas Tech. With this alignment they keep the RRR with OU that heads to the B1G.

The get their old rivals back with better conference games, keep OU, and still have at least 3 games with which to schedule other non-P Texas schools or other national brands which drives up ticket interest and makes them more money, and they have a home for minor sports that isn't that much farther than the Old Big 12 North was and they get a raise of 10% to boot.

If Texas really really wants to play the academic card they have the same deal in the Big 10. But for the record Texas has never really been concerned about being in a better academic league. The old SWC was worse than the SEC academically and the their best association the Big 12 lost 4 founding AAU members and Texas didn't flinch when reloading with T.C.U. (another Texas school to play) and WVU (hardly an academic stalwart).

So this fantasy notion that Texas will go independent for essentially no raise and for a lot more headaches with minor sports just doesn't seem reasonable or feasible especially when those they contract to play 5 times a year have no history with them.

If Texas stays with the Big 12 they'll have to replace Oklahoma with a B.Y.U. or one of the Florida twins and removing 12 Oklahoma vs Big 12 games significantly reduces the value of the Big 12 contract. Now you have a few T1 Texas games to televise and a whole bunch of T3 material and some but less T2 material depending upon who might get hot from the other 8 and that's about it. It would be nothing appealing to the season ticket holders in Austin. So I don't see that either.

I said UT would stay with the Big 12 but go independent in football.

And I'm telling you the value of the 37.8 million dollar Big 12 payout would significantly drop without Oklahoma and might be worth less than a 5 game ACC schedule without them. It solves their minor sports but the overall devaluation would be too great for that to happen either. We are in a content driven market and assuming that Texas still has 4 strong P games to sell it still doesn't work financially, even figuring the over estimate I gave them in the ACC scenario.

I've always thought that one of the strongest forces when it comes to realignment decisions is inertia. College presidents almost always lean toward the status quo in the absence of a compelling reason not to. The only reason compelling enough to move is generally money. Not just some money. Not "I hope more money". But lots of money and very little uncertainty that it will come your way.

For schools like UT and OU, they already have a lot of money, and are raking it in where they are now. Unless a major bump is assured up front, it's going to be hard to move them. Only the SEC and B1G have the ability to do that. And it's going to take someone like ESPN or Fox (or maybe both) committing to give it to them before anything happens.

So which one steps up, and which conference do they offer the deal to first? And with what conditions?

(08-09-2019 07:53 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I've always thought that one of the strongest forces when it comes to realignment decisions is inertia. College presidents almost always lean toward the status quo in the absence of a compelling reason not to. The only reason compelling enough to move is generally money. Not just some money. Not "I hope more money". But lots of money and very little uncertainty that it will come your way.

For schools like UT and OU, they already have a lot of money, and are raking it in where they are now. Unless a major bump is assured up front, it's going to be hard to move them. Only the SEC and B1G have the ability to do that. And it's going to take someone like ESPN or Fox (or maybe both) committing to give it to them before anything happens.

So which one steps up, and which conference do they offer the deal to first? And with what conditions?

I'm thinking both at the same time and the conditions will be no more than two schools each.

You have a situation where when the Big 12 GOR is up that 67% of their total value can be had in 2 schools which placed in the Big 10 and SEC would create 3 or 4 extra national draws a year, and depending upon the placement of the schools would lasso in 28 million viewers from Texas, or at least 11 million more from Oklahoma and DFW, plus the total viewership of the SEC and Big 10 when the RRR is played. It is much more efficient to maximize the value of OU and UT through product placement than it is to pay 10 schools in the Big 12 38.7 million plus for games of lesser consequence.

So Ken D. the networks have motive, and they may have motive to unofficially cooperate in this venture. Their PR cover would be reuniting lost rivalries. Oklahoma/Nebraska and Texas/Texas A&M.

The SEC is scheduling more home and home's with the Big 10. I think this will be the first in a strategy to match the SEC and Big 10 as often as possible in the regular season and then to let them play the PAC and ACC in the post season bowls where there is more traditional interest and usually games that provoke good travel.

Then the SEC and Big 10 would meet in the CFP. This brings the eyes of the two most watched conferences through the course of the 12 game season and permits the bowl season to reclaim past regional and conference rivalries to try to drive some interest. Then the CFP will take the champions from the most diverse regions to keep an national audience through the semis. The finals usually have solid numbers.

So if Oklahoma and Kansas wound up in the Big 10 then the RRR and the UK/Missouri game would become some of the Big 10 / SEC home and homes that highlight perhaps as many as 6 or 7 such OOC games. The Northeastern Big 10 schools and the Northeastern ACC schools would do the same and the Southern most ACC/SEC rivals would be preserved as well.

It's much easier to keep all regions of the country involved if the PAC champ, Big 10 champ, SEC champ and ACC champ are virtual shoe ins every year. The bonus here is that the SEC and Big 10 might bring in the Southwest from time to time thereby giving the same potential reach but utilizing 4 conferences instead of 5 to achieve it.

Since 2010 it has all been about product placement first under the subscription fee pay model and now under the content model.

So 16 would be the maximum number of conference members the networks would pay for and adding Kansas and a second school with Texas would easily account for 75% of the value of the Big 12 for 45-50% of the cost.

The two top product lines (SEC/B1G) are used to maximize the value of two top 7 schools. The PAC and ACC remain essentially as is with "perhaps" the PAC picking up a few CTZ schools from the Big 12, but that's about it. Perhaps the ACC picks up a content or market add (WVU / TCU).

Texas renews with Arkansas & A&M, the Mizzou / Kansas series is resumed along with the Oklahoma / Nebraska series, Texas / Oklahoma is preserved, and Penn State / Pitt, Maryland / Virginia, and other such games are either reinstated or initiated.

The public likes it and that provides the cover for absorbing a portion of the Big 12.

Well, if it ends up with OU and KU in the Big Ten while UT and [insert tag-along Texas school] go to the SEC, I wonder if the Big Ten might go back to an 8-game conference schedule. Their total number of conference games would actually still increase (albeit slightly, 63 to 64), and having the extra OOC game would make it easier for OU and KU to maintain annual series with little brother (OSU and KSU) and SEC rival (UT and MU).

A possible pod setup for the Big Ten and SEC:



Each row is a pod. Pods rotate between divisions in a 3-year cycle. Each pair of green schools in the same column has a protected crossover, as does each pair of blue schools. The bolded pairs in each column are alternate crossovers (these schools play 2 years out of 3), as are the non-bolded pairs.

I haven't posted in a long time, but I do now because the academic connection between Texas and the B1G may be a stronger pull than posters think.

University Administrators don't really care about having top philosophy or literature departments (nice to have but not a priority). Science and tech programs bring in the research dollars. In particular, engineering programs because they generate lots of government grants and research coordination with industry, as well as patents, all of which brings in far more revenue than football.

If you look at the US News rankings for graduate engineering programs (which are more focused on research than undergrad rankings), you'll certainly see a lot of California schools, as expected with Silicon valley nearby. Stanford, UC Berkley, USC and UCLA are all highly rated. But the Big 10 is an engineering powerhouse too, maybe even better.

The Big 10 has 3 of the top 10 grad programs (Michigan, Purdue and Illinois), as does the PAC, and 4 of the top 20 (Northwestern) as does the PAC. The Big 10 has 8 of the top 30 (Maryland, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Minnesota) and the PAC has 5. The Big 10 has 9 of the top 50 (Penn State) with Rutgers (52) and Michigan State (55) not far behind, and the PAC has 7.

Iowa (73) and Nebraska (95) also have ranked programs. Indiana is unranked.

How does the SEC compare? The SEC has 3 in the top 50. Texas A&M is #15. No other SEC school joins the top 50 list until Vanderbilt at #39 and Florida at #45, below all of the Big 10 schools in the top 50.

I thing UT and Oklahoma have a gentlemens agreement to approach realignment as a team in 2024-25, based on how Boren's fake expansion play ended a few years ago with he and the Texas reps burying the hatchet after some private talks. If they decide to move together (and I think they will), I think the Big 10 is the most likely place because Texas will see the significantly greater opportunity the Big 10 presents for collaboration on tech research than the SEC, and that can generate far more overall revenue for the university than football. The research dollars may be the tipping point if both conferences will generate roughly the same football revenue for Texas.

(08-09-2019 11:20 PM)CintiFan Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't posted in a long time, but I do now because the academic connection between Texas and the B1G may be a stronger pull than posters think.

University Administrators don't really care about having top philosophy or literature departments (nice to have but not a priority). Science and tech programs bring in the research dollars. In particular, engineering programs because they generate lots of government grants and research coordination with industry, as well as patents, all of which brings in far more revenue than football.

If you look at the US News rankings for graduate engineering programs (which are more focused on research than undergrad rankings), you'll certainly see a lot of California schools, as expected with Silicon valley nearby. Stanford, UC Berkley, USC and UCLA are all highly rated. But the Big 10 is an engineering powerhouse too, maybe even better.

The Big 10 has 3 of the top 10 grad programs (Michigan, Purdue and Illinois), as does the PAC, and 4 of the top 20 (Northwestern) as does the PAC. The Big 10 has 8 of the top 30 (Maryland, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Minnesota) and the PAC has 5. The Big 10 has 9 of the top 50 (Penn State) with Rutgers (52) and Michigan State (55) not far behind, and the PAC has 7.

Iowa (73) and Nebraska (95) also have ranked programs. Indiana is unranked.

How does the SEC compare? The SEC has 3 in the top 50. Texas A&M is #15. No other SEC school joins the top 50 list until Vanderbilt at #39 and Florida at #45, below all of the Big 10 schools in the top 50.

I thing UT and Oklahoma have a gentlemens agreement to approach realignment as a team in 2024-25, based on how Boren's fake expansion play ended a few years ago with he and the Texas reps burying the hatchet after some private talks. If they decide to move together (and I think they will), I think the Big 10 is the most likely place because Texas will see the significantly greater opportunity the Big 10 presents for collaboration on tech research than the SEC, and that can generate far more overall revenue for the university than football. The research dollars may be the tipping point if both conferences will generate roughly the same football revenue for Texas.

Except that they are already free to share research projects with whomever they wish. Auburn has shared aerospace engineering grants with Purdue before. What the BTAA does is share aspects of grants so that the pool of schools involved can best match their expertise to varying aspects of a project. The amount extra that generates over sharing projects with peer schools within the AAU is negligible.

Texas has long managed their own research partners.

In the end they will share research with whom they wish to share it, and play sports where they can generate the best donor and fan support. Now Oklahoma might benefit a lot more from it than Texas.

We'll see.

Yes, we will see whether Texas and Oklahoma view joining a conference as more of a sports decision or a university association decision. I think in the past it's been viewed more from the sports perspective. That's certainly still true today for the non P-5 conferences, which change members like restaurants change menus. The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are more permanent institutions and their members historically felt more of a pull to be associated with like institutions. I suppose it depends, then, on whether Texas views the Big 10 members or SEC members as more like them.

(08-09-2019 11:31 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Except that they are already free to share research projects with whomever they wish. Auburn has shared aerospace engineering grants with Purdue before. What the BTAA does is share aspects of grants so that the pool of schools involved can best match their expertise to varying aspects of a project. The amount extra that generates over sharing projects with peer schools within the AAU is negligible.

Quite. The BTAA nee CIC has been window dressing since its founding in 1958 in the aftermath of the "football factory" scandals of the 50s.

While the relative academic prestige of many of the programs in the Big Ten Universities will have have whatever weight they happen to carry with UT higher ups, the BTAA itself only matters if Texas higher ups feel like Texas would benefit from having its windows dressed in that way.

(08-09-2019 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Not really. Without OU Texas has nothing left to hang a 10 gallon hat on with regard to schedule. They're gone too. It's a quid pro quo. If one leaves so does the other. The only question then is do they leave together or separately. If they leave separately then in state politics for either will likely be the reason.

For instance if Texas wants to protect Tech and leaves first to the SEC then Oklahoma has limited options to move with OSU. If folks in Oklahoma politics grasp this then it is possible that Oklahoma leaves first with OSU. That would not necessarily limit Texas's options but it would preserve OU's chance to leave with OSU.

The problem for OU would be whether the SEC would offer OU and OSU if they thought that OU leaving first to say the Big 10 would spring UT and TTU?

Both the SEC and Big 10 will want OU and UT and nobody else so the state leverage will likely come into play. The interesting part will be who blinks first? The Big 10 like the SEC will prefer Texas. Would they jump the shark and offer Texas and Tech? If they do the SEC still gets the better pair with Oklahoma and Kansas. If they offer OU and KU then the SEC gets Texas and a buddy.

It'll be fun to watch. But for it to happen OU is the one that will most likely have to want to leave. Texas would be content to stay with the Sooners because UT has the benefits advantage in the conference. If OU leaves then they take 10% of the value of the Big 12 with them and if Kansas tags along it's more like 15-6%.

And if the SEC wants Texas they might refuse the Oklahoma pair to make it happen. With Texas and Tech the SEC has 3 T2 games a week on average that can draw from a market of 28 million. That's a lot of bump in the value of the T2 portion of their property. Plus it gives them the hammer for ad revenue in that state. So while OU is a great brand if we can't have both we earn more with Texas.

JRsec,

I part with you on Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. I do not believe either has a chance of staying on the coattails of their big brother. Your own sports value chart shows these two are not worth much.

But the metric also of Institutional value, which is not sports (where the P12 especially and also the B1G soar far above the SEC, ACC and B12) these two "complimentary" schools are not much value either.

The long run, the value of the flagships, especially in smaller states like Oklahoma (only 5 CDs and likely to drop to 4 perhaps as soon as 2030) is that they will still be in demand for residential students. The "State" and directional schools are fighting a battle to stay relevant as education model changes and the education demographic shifts and other options rise. Yes rich parents will still send their kids to private and top flagship schools (I include the professional classes in the suburbs with "rich") but the others probably wont so much.

But most important I think the power of the local legislature, both in terms of real power as the institutions have become more autonomous from their pressure -- the result of the growth of federal and state regulatory agencies, setting rules and regulations that used to be the preview of legislatures and congress -- and the loss of will to intervene on such matters. Part of this is a change in the make up of the legislatures, with more women and minorities and other interests who did not come from the "good old boys" network of the local State University Fraternities. Fewer of them played sports or donate to the schools athletic programs. They simply don't have the stake in it they used to. And in general the public is more saturated with pro sports.

The SEC and the B1G will not yield to a state legislature. Why should they? Those days of being coupled are long gone. In Texas this was apparent when Texas A&M walked off. Things had changed dramatically in State house politics between 1990 and 2010 in Texas. Like it or not, Texas and Oklahoma are decoupled from their in State rivals. The world is different than even the 1990s. You even acknowledge that a bit yourself with the KU partner option. Recognizing that KU being a flagship carries more long term survivability than any hot non-flagship program.

Note, the SEC always has the counter that they offer an 8 game schedule and November non-conference rivalries flourish in the SEC.

Bottom line, the Statehouse no longer has the power to force a B1G or SEC to take an Oklahoma State and give them $600M in revenue over a decade. In 1995 the money was a lot smaller, so such pressure still mattered. But the autonomy of schools is greater, the political will is less, and the money so much greater, that 1995 thinking no longer applies.

You want to know where Texas will be?
Ask yourself this: where is the real value in sports broadcasting today?

If you didn't think playoffs/tournaments you flunked the test.

In the 50's and 60's when an American or National League team won their pennant they were in the World Series. Then came two divisions and then three and we introduced "wild card" teams, that had to play to get into the playoffs. It's so complicated in the NBA that the playoffs last almost as long as the regular season.
But the reason there are playoffs, is because the casual fan will watch and expand the audience so that the broadcaster can make more money and subsequently pay the teams/leagues more.

So you want to know where Texas will be? Predict how the playoffs will be structured the next time around....that will give you the answer. And don't start to believe all of this about stuff like "content valuation". Why? because in the world of playoffs, there has to be some semblance of parity to get everybody on board. The Yankees and the Red Sox are taxed by MLB to support small market teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City.

The people that pay the bills, whether it's ESPN, CBS, Amazon, YouTube or NBC understand the formula. The formula works and makes money. The formula will not change regardless of who or how the product gets to the consumer.

When the playoff formula is set to get the maximum exposure then we will know. Whether it includes 4 or 5 conferences, if those conferences continue to have championship games, and the maximum number of games the schools will consent to allow the student-athletes to play. Then you will have your answer.
What you will not see is a hoarding of top teams in one location.....it's not good for business.

(08-10-2019 07:33 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]You want to know where Texas will be?
Ask yourself this: where is the real value in sports broadcasting today?

If you didn't think playoffs/tournaments you flunked the test.

In the 50's and 60's when an American or National League team won their pennant they were in the World Series. Then came two divisions and then three and we introduced "wild card" teams, that had to play to get into the playoffs. It's so complicated in the NBA that the playoffs last almost as long as the regular season.
But the reason there are playoffs, is because the casual fan will watch and expand the audience so that the broadcaster can make more money and subsequently pay the teams/leagues more.

So you want to know where Texas will be? Predict how the playoffs will be structured the next time around....that will give you the answer. And don't start to believe all of this about stuff like "content valuation". Why? because in the world of playoffs, there has to be some semblance of parity to get everybody on board. The Yankees and the Red Sox are taxed by MLB to support small market teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City.

The people that pay the bills, whether it's ESPN, CBS, Amazon, YouTube or NBC understand the formula. The formula works and makes money. The formula will not change regardless of who or how the product gets to the consumer.

When the playoff formula is set to get the maximum exposure then we will know. Whether it includes 4 or 5 conferences, if those conferences continue to have championship games, and the maximum number of games the schools will consent to allow the student-athletes to play. Then you will have your answer.
What you will not see is a hoarding of top teams in one location.....it's not good for business.

Parity, parity, pa-ri-ty. Know what that is? The mating call of losers! Only losers are concerned about parity. Especially losers who are basketball first but care about appearances. Champions don't fear competition.

As long as there is competition among the carriers and as long as more revenue is the name of the game, there cannot be parity. Until there are leagues and collective bargaining there will not be parity. In other words as long as one overarching entity can not control college football parity will not exist. College football is still a free market and the only thing new constraining it are GOR's which are limited to contract periods, and we have 4 contracts expiring in 2023-5.