Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

(05-12-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

Culturally that makes some sense; however, if the SEC can pull FSU and Clemson it would be better off going east and picking up a VA and NC school as well because without Clemson, and especially FSU, the ACC is getting a much smaller payout from ESPN. That would be much better than adding Baylor (who has struggled in FB outside the last few years with Broyles and is going to be Vandy in the SEC) and OSU just to land OU and UT. Three schools in Texas and 2 in OK would be a far cry from Slive's recent expansion outlook. With FSU and Clemson you would duplicate as well, but FL is a large state and the SEC would own it then, SC = OK basically, but the SEC would probably land VT and NCST at least (if not UVA and UNC) when the ACC comes apart with FSU & Clemson departing.

Gaining VA and NC would beat out gaining OK. Then just add 19 and 20 from either the ACC remnants or ask a couple B12 schools. B12 schools not named UT, KU, and OU would probably kill their first born to be in the stable and powerful SEC after the last few tumultuous years of B12 membership and one or 2 of the brand schools might even join with those additions and without little brothers if the money was right.

(05-12-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

In terms of football prowess, you are correct, JR. Selfishly, I want a VA and NC school to give Kentucky more natural rivals. I bet South Carolina feels the same way. It has been hard for both of us to break into the Tennessee/Georgia/Florida love triangle at any level. Auburn is definitely a bigger rival to UGA and UF than either UK or USC, and Tennessee feels the same about Alabama. It is rough when our biggest rival, Tennessee, sees us as their 4th most important rival, at best. A VA and NC school really helps to round out potential pods of 4 or 5 schools. You could easily place UK and USC with those VA and NC schools and stop having to worry about us fitting in the existing rivalry structure. Just an addition of two of those schools to get to 16 sure is clean:

Pod A - Kentucky, VA, NC, South Carolina

Pod B - Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee

Pod C - Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Pod D - Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri


Are the pods unbalanced? Absolutely, but as long as overall conference record, not pod record, is used for the conference championship, then it matches up most of the important rivals for everyone. Pods as a scheduling device, not a determiner of champion, could really work well with a VA and NC school.

Adding two schools from the west would certainly help Missouri, but we would still be left with the UK/USC problem in the east. I know the TV numbers for the North Carolina and Virginia schools did not look great last year compared to the Oklahoma schools, but I still believe that there is a large percentage of VA and NC residents that identify strongly with Southern culture, and they just need a rallying point. That is what our schools represent to our states. If UK was in the Big 10 or ACC, the whole state of Kentucky would probably be seen as a tepid expansion candidate for the SEC. On the borders, it does not take much to be swayed either way. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I believe if Virginia Tech and North Carolina State step back and see UVA and UNC in the same manner that TAMU sees Texas, they are primed to take the role as the Southern rallying point for citizenry. Even if only half of those states' citizenry come on board, that is still 10 million new faces that reconnect with their states' heritage and culture.

I am sure my UK fandom and frequent business travels in North Carolina are swaying my opinion, but I'm not ready to give up on NC and VA yet as tremendous additions to the SEC. I see many of those residents as SEC folks without a home. Some know it (see any ECU post on this site), and some don't know that they don't know it. Outside of FSU and Clemson, there are no more "signed, sealed, delivered" schools that will immediately fit into the SEC with no hesitations, similar to TAMU. However, NC and VA also do not have to combat the mysteries of a school like Missouri. They are fitting great, but we all had a learning curve with them. I think NC State and Virginia Tech would be somewhere between TAMU and Missouri in terms of transition ease.

(05-13-2014 02:40 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

Culturally that makes some sense; however, if the SEC can pull FSU and Clemson it would be better off going east and picking up a VA and NC school as well because without Clemson, and especially FSU, the ACC is getting a much smaller payout from ESPN. That would be much better than adding Baylor (who has struggled in FB outside the last few years with Broyles and is going to be Vandy in the SEC) and OSU just to land OU and UT. Three schools in Texas and 2 in OK would be a far cry from Slive's recent expansion outlook. With FSU and Clemson you would duplicate as well, but FL is a large state and the SEC would own it then, SC = OK basically, but the SEC would probably land VT and NCST at least (if not UVA and UNC) when the ACC comes apart with FSU & Clemson departing.

Gaining VA and NC would beat out gaining OK. Then just add 19 and 20 from either the ACC remnants or ask a couple B12 schools. B12 schools not named UT, KU, and OU would probably kill their first born to be in the stable and powerful SEC after the last few tumultuous years of B12 membership and one or 2 of the brand schools might even join with those additions and without little brothers if the money was right.

What you are saying is logical from a particular point of view, that of markets. My point is that while ESPN and FOX might want us to think in terms of markets the truth is the SEC already has the highest average in revenue production, the highest attendance, and the highest average revenue generation of all of the conferences. While having North Carolina and Virginia would be nice market wise the truth is they water down our brand.

I totally agree that the key to the destruction of the ACC is Florida State and Clemson and I stated that over 2 years ago when pointing out that if the SEC wanted to raid the ACC that was the key that unlocked the door. But I also pointed out that ESPN has no desire for the SEC to be anything to the ACC except for an escape hatch should the Big 10's earnings disparity with the ACC come into play. And only then will you see ACC schools leaving for the SEC and at that point ESPN will simply use the opportunity to cull the ACC herd.

Networks drive this realignment. My point in the post was that from the numbers perspective those schools fit the best. They tend to have the best attendance, earn the most, and generate the most interest (Baylor excepted).

Now stop and think about the SEC additions in the last two rounds of realignment. In 1992 the SEC's main objectives fell apart and we took 1 of our primary targets, Arkansas and took South Carolina to keep options for expansion into North Carolina open. We at that time wanted Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas from the West. We went after Florida State and initially Clemson in the East. In short Jayhawk we viewed them to be the best fits for us then and we still see them that way now. Who were the last two additions? The sure weren't from the ACC! ESPN won't permit it, as they refuse to pay for it. So the SEC added one of its primary targets from Big 12, Texas A&M, and ESPN encouraged the taking of Missouri which in 1992 prior to the formation of the Big 12 didn't seem like an opportunity as a member of the Big 8. So by taking Arkansas in '92 Missouri becomes an unexpected option in 2012.

In the thread SEC Realignment Just by the Numbers I make it fairly clear that there are very few schools that can add to the totals of the SEC. Texas adds to them all. Oklahoma adds to the average slightly. Florida State is a wash. Clemson is a wash. Everyone else really drags the numbers down.

So why Baylor & Oklahoma State? If that is the price of the last two prizes it is doable. An addition of 4 in the West permits Alabama and Auburn to move East. That reunites the core of the old SEC, gives Texas and Oklahoma what no other conference can: L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, Missouri, and the two Mississippi schools. That with rivals Oklahoma State, or Baylor/Texas Tech (which although in the state of Texas is a geographical outlier) is as good as they will find anywhere to play. It is certainly a more meaningful schedule to their fan bases than what either the PAC or Big 10 have to offer. And it affords their minor sports relatively easy travel.

Then there is the whole cultural fit thing. Let me ask you, "Who are the cultural fits for millionaires?" Other millionaires, right? The SEC has 6 of the top 10 earners in college athletics. Oklahoma and Texas are also top 10 earners. There are more economic peers and athletic peers of Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC than anywhere else they can go.

So the point here is simple. The SEC will play the angles that better their case to land those two schools. We offer affordable logistics for the fans, old rival favorites for them to play, and athletic and revenue peers. The Big 10 offers academic peers, not logistically close, no real established rivalries, and as an AAU school already Texas would benefit some from CIC projects, but probably not enough to swing the deal. The Big 10 would certainly offer the opportunity to make money on television contracts, but then when it all comes out in the open the SEC will still be close enough on that front as well. The PAC offers what?...........I'm still waiting?......... I'll tell you what they offer. A few competitive athletic programs, a lousy fan base that has other things to do, a travel nightmare, and less money by far than the Big 10 or SEC, and the greatest academic disparity between schools of any of the other conferences except the Big 12. And for all of the academic peer garbage I read on the Big 12 boards Texas is less a peer of the 4 California schools and more a peer of the Big 10. Oklahoma is about on par with Auburn in most demographics and well behind Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, and Alabama. OU for all their talk basically meets the mean of the SEC. And Kansas is in the same shape but does have the distinction of AAU. Texas in the SEC would have 1 superior and 2 peers. Vanderbilt would be their superior, and Florida and Texas A&M their academic peers. Texas would rank #2 academically in the SEC. They would be about 4th or maybe 5th in the Big 10 and would be either 5th or 6th in the PAC, and about 6th in the ACC behind Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Boston College, and North Carolina. They are either behind or about the same as Miami so they might even be 7th. So while they are 1st in the Big 12 the truth is right now any conference is an academic improvement for the Horns.

So in conclusion:
1. ESPN will not pay the SEC to raid the ACC. So outside of the ACC making room for more market expansion there is no real target for the SEC in the ACC. That leaves only the Big 12.
2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.
3. I'm sure the LHN is proof enough that ESPN would like to lock up the Horns more fully in either of their two conferences.
4. Oklahoma would be a coup and OSU is going to be worth it to get them.
5. The most logical place for their fans, and for familiarity outside of the Big 12 is the SEC.
6. The SEC is very interested in improving its academic standing. Texas helps, Oklahoma meets the mean, BAYLOR enhances the mean (Texas Tech harms it) and Oklahoma State would harm it but nowhere near as much as Texas Tech.
7. So if the SEC had to take two teams to land the last two prizes Oklahoma State might be a must, and Baylor would be the best travel partner for the Horns.
8. If Texas did not insist on a travel companion then Kansas would be fine, but then that makes them the most extreme outlier in the SEC and I doubt seriously they want that distinction even though the SEC I'm sure would be happier to have them.

So JayhawkMVP I totally understand your perspective, but it is one that does not take into consideration the existing contractual obligations or the preferences of the one who writes the checks for the SEC, ACC, and a large portion of the funds for Texas, and a tidy sum for Kansas. Kansas gets out of their contract about the time the Big 12 GOR expires, but Texas is under obligation until 2031. And that's why if anything further happens I expect the SEC to further expand from the Big 12, unless N.C. State and Virginia Tech are given to the SEC to make room for a pod of 4 from the Big 12 for the ACC. But all things considered, the attitudes and desires of Virginia Tech and N.C. State, the travel expenses, and the likelihood that conferences could consolidate further, I suspect that the SEC adds between 4 to 6 Big 12 schools and the ACC adds 1 more (West Virginia or Connecticut). Then if there is further consolidation into 2 Mega conferences the old conference boundaries become the new divisions with a few geographical changes.

In a contract the one who pays controls. The networks are in control. It's much cheaper for the networks to sell one unified cable product than it is to sell three. The law of diminishing returns tells me that this will push networks into having 1 cable offering instead of triplicating them. The law of economy tells me that eliminating duplicated conference bureaucracies will eventually lead schools to seeing the benefit of one bigger umbrella.

(05-13-2014 10:23 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

In terms of football prowess, you are correct, JR. Selfishly, I want a VA and NC school to give Kentucky more natural rivals. I bet South Carolina feels the same way. It has been hard for both of us to break into the Tennessee/Georgia/Florida love triangle at any level. Auburn is definitely a bigger rival to UGA and UF than either UK or USC, and Tennessee feels the same about Alabama. It is rough when our biggest rival, Tennessee, sees us as their 4th most important rival, at best. A VA and NC school really helps to round out potential pods of 4 or 5 schools. You could easily place UK and USC with those VA and NC schools and stop having to worry about us fitting in the existing rivalry structure. Just an addition of two of those schools to get to 16 sure is clean:

Pod A - Kentucky, VA, NC, South Carolina

Pod B - Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee

Pod C - Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Pod D - Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri


Are the pods unbalanced? Absolutely, but as long as overall conference record, not pod record, is used for the conference championship, then it matches up most of the important rivals for everyone. Pods as a scheduling device, not a determiner of champion, could really work well with a VA and NC school.

Adding two schools from the west would certainly help Missouri, but we would still be left with the UK/USC problem in the east. I know the TV numbers for the North Carolina and Virginia schools did not look great last year compared to the Oklahoma schools, but I still believe that there is a large percentage of VA and NC residents that identify strongly with Southern culture, and they just need a rallying point. That is what our schools represent to our states. If UK was in the Big 10 or ACC, the whole state of Kentucky would probably be seen as a tepid expansion candidate for the SEC. On the borders, it does not take much to be swayed either way. Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I believe if Virginia Tech and North Carolina State step back and see UVA and UNC in the same manner that TAMU sees Texas, they are primed to take the role as the Southern rallying point for citizenry. Even if only half of those states' citizenry come on board, that is still 10 million new faces that reconnect with their states' heritage and culture.

I am sure my UK fandom and frequent business travels in North Carolina are swaying my opinion, but I'm not ready to give up on NC and VA yet as tremendous additions to the SEC. I see many of those residents as SEC folks without a home. Some know it (see any ECU post on this site), and some don't know that they don't know it. Outside of FSU and Clemson, there are no more "signed, sealed, delivered" schools that will immediately fit into the SEC with no hesitations, similar to TAMU. However, NC and VA also do not have to combat the mysteries of a school like Missouri. They are fitting great, but we all had a learning curve with them. I think NC State and Virginia Tech would be somewhere between TAMU and Missouri in terms of transition ease.

I don't disagree with your assessment or your pod pairings at all. I just don't think that as long as the ACC looks stable and ESPN thinks they have a shot at Notre Dame that we will have any approved movement of ACC schools to the SEC. In the meantime I'm sure ESPN would love to more fully lock down the properties they might like to own in the Big 12.

If the economic disparity between the ACC and Big 10 get to a point that ESPN is no longer comfortable and fears defections I look for some kind of merger or agreement between the SEC and ACC to ameliorate the disparity and solidify the collective product. At that point dividing new divisions could definitely aid Kentucky by placing them with the Virignia's and North Carolina's. But, until then the only viable expansion product is to the Southwest and West from a product acquisition perspective.

I guess what I'm saying is that realignment to 16 or 18 will come from the west. Realignment to 32 or 36 will come by merger and that is the only way we get access to divisional play with ACC schools.

And the idea of a Big 10 / PAC merger may be a wild idea, but underpinning it is feasibility. FOX has a large network site in Los Angeles. It may be the only way to get the California schools the kind of money they are looking for. Corporate backers like the idea. 7 of the proposed 9 in the merger meet CIC requirements. It explodes the value of the Big 10 and props up the geographical value of the Midwestern states as the center point of the the Mega conference. And it gets around the PACN distribution problems by making it a subsidiary of the BTN. If something like that were to transpire the logical counter move for ESPN would be an SEC/ACC merger with the addition of key Big 12 properties. Under 1 umbrella the division into geographical groupings would benefit all.

(05-13-2014 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 02:40 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

Culturally that makes some sense; however, if the SEC can pull FSU and Clemson it would be better off going east and picking up a VA and NC school as well because without Clemson, and especially FSU, the ACC is getting a much smaller payout from ESPN. That would be much better than adding Baylor (who has struggled in FB outside the last few years with Broyles and is going to be Vandy in the SEC) and OSU just to land OU and UT. Three schools in Texas and 2 in OK would be a far cry from Slive's recent expansion outlook. With FSU and Clemson you would duplicate as well, but FL is a large state and the SEC would own it then, SC = OK basically, but the SEC would probably land VT and NCST at least (if not UVA and UNC) when the ACC comes apart with FSU & Clemson departing.

Gaining VA and NC would beat out gaining OK. Then just add 19 and 20 from either the ACC remnants or ask a couple B12 schools. B12 schools not named UT, KU, and OU would probably kill their first born to be in the stable and powerful SEC after the last few tumultuous years of B12 membership and one or 2 of the brand schools might even join with those additions and without little brothers if the money was right.

What you are saying is logical from a particular point of view, that of markets. My point is that while ESPN and FOX might want us to think in terms of markets the truth is the SEC already has the highest average in revenue production, the highest attendance, and the highest average revenue generation of all of the conferences. While having North Carolina and Virginia would be nice market wise the truth is they water down our brand.

I totally agree that the key to the destruction of the ACC is Florida State and Clemson and I stated that over 2 years ago when pointing out that if the SEC wanted to raid the ACC that was the key that unlocked the door. But I also pointed out that ESPN has no desire for the SEC to be anything to the ACC except for an escape hatch should the Big 10's earnings disparity with the ACC come into play. And only then will you see ACC schools leaving for the SEC and at that point ESPN will simply use the opportunity to cull the ACC herd.

Networks drive this realignment. My point in the post was that from the numbers perspective those schools fit the best. They tend to have the best attendance, earn the most, and generate the most interest (Baylor excepted).

Now stop and think about the SEC additions in the last two rounds of realignment. In 1992 the SEC's main objectives fell apart and we took 1 of our primary targets, Arkansas and took South Carolina to keep options for expansion into North Carolina open. We at that time wanted Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas from the West. We went after Florida State and initially Clemson in the East. In short Jayhawk we viewed them to be the best fits for us then and we still see them that way now. Who were the last two additions? The sure weren't from the ACC! ESPN won't permit it, as they refuse to pay for it. So the SEC added one of its primary targets from Big 12, Texas A&M, and ESPN encouraged the taking of Missouri which in 1992 prior to the formation of the Big 12 didn't seem like an opportunity as a member of the Big 8. So by taking Arkansas in '92 Missouri becomes an unexpected option in 2012.

In the thread SEC Realignment Just by the Numbers I make it fairly clear that there are very few schools that can add to the totals of the SEC. Texas adds to them all. Oklahoma adds to the average slightly. Florida State is a wash. Clemson is a wash. Everyone else really drags the numbers down.

So why Baylor & Oklahoma State? If that is the price of the last two prizes it is doable. An addition of 4 in the West permits Alabama and Auburn to move East. That reunites the core of the old SEC, gives Texas and Oklahoma what no other conference can: L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, Missouri, and the two Mississippi schools. That with rivals Oklahoma State, or Baylor/Texas Tech (which although in the state of Texas is a geographical outlier) is as good as they will find anywhere to play. It is certainly a more meaningful schedule to their fan bases than what either the PAC or Big 10 have to offer. And it affords their minor sports relatively easy travel.

Then there is the whole cultural fit thing. Let me ask you, "Who are the cultural fits for millionaires?" Other millionaires, right? The SEC has 6 of the top 10 earners in college athletics. Oklahoma and Texas are also top 10 earners. There are more economic peers and athletic peers of Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC than anywhere else they can go.

So the point here is simple. The SEC will play the angles that better their case to land those two schools. We offer affordable logistics for the fans, old rival favorites for them to play, and athletic and revenue peers. The Big 10 offers academic peers, not logistically close, no real established rivalries, and as an AAU school already Texas would benefit some from CIC projects, but probably not enough to swing the deal. The Big 10 would certainly offer the opportunity to make money on television contracts, but then when it all comes out in the open the SEC will still be close enough on that front as well. The PAC offers what?...........I'm still waiting?......... I'll tell you what they offer. A few competitive athletic programs, a lousy fan base that has other things to do, a travel nightmare, and less money by far than the Big 10 or SEC, and the greatest academic disparity between schools of any of the other conferences except the Big 12. And for all of the academic peer garbage I read on the Big 12 boards Texas is less a peer of the 4 California schools and more a peer of the Big 10. Oklahoma is about on par with Auburn in most demographics and well behind Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, and Alabama. OU for all their talk basically meets the mean of the SEC. And Kansas is in the same shape but does have the distinction of AAU. Texas in the SEC would have 1 superior and 2 peers. Vanderbilt would be their superior, and Florida and Texas A&M their academic peers. Texas would rank #2 academically in the SEC. They would be about 4th or maybe 5th in the Big 10 and would be either 5th or 6th in the PAC, and about 6th in the ACC behind Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Boston College, and North Carolina. They are either behind or about the same as Miami so they might even be 7th. So while they are 1st in the Big 12 the truth is right now any conference is an academic improvement for the Horns.

So in conclusion:
1. ESPN will not pay the SEC to raid the ACC. So outside of the ACC making room for more market expansion there is no real target for the SEC in the ACC. That leaves only the Big 12.
2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.
3. I'm sure the LHN is proof enough that ESPN would like to lock up the Horns more fully in either of their two conferences.
4. Oklahoma would be a coup and OSU is going to be worth it to get them.
5. The most logical place for their fans, and for familiarity outside of the Big 12 is the SEC.
6. The SEC is very interested in improving its academic standing. Texas helps, Oklahoma meets the mean, BAYLOR enhances the mean (Texas Tech harms it) and Oklahoma State would harm it but nowhere near as much as Texas Tech.
7. So if the SEC had to take two teams to land the last two prizes Oklahoma State might be a must, and Baylor would be the best travel partner for the Horns.
8. If Texas did not insist on a travel companion then Kansas would be fine, but then that makes them the most extreme outlier in the SEC and I doubt seriously they want that distinction even though the SEC I'm sure would be happier to have them.

So JayhawkMVP I totally understand your perspective, but it is one that does not take into consideration the existing contractual obligations or the preferences of the one who writes the checks for the SEC, ACC, and a large portion of the funds for Texas, and a tidy sum for Kansas. Kansas gets out of their contract about the time the Big 12 GOR expires, but Texas is under obligation until 2031. And that's why if anything further happens I expect the SEC to further expand from the Big 12, unless N.C. State and Virginia Tech are given to the SEC to make room for a pod of 4 from the Big 12 for the ACC. But all things considered, the attitudes and desires of Virginia Tech and N.C. State, the travel expenses, and the likelihood that conferences could consolidate further, I suspect that the SEC adds between 4 to 6 Big 12 schools and the ACC adds 1 more (West Virginia or Connecticut). Then if there is further consolidation into 2 Mega conferences the old conference boundaries become the new divisions with a few geographical changes.

In a contract the one who pays controls. The networks are in control. It's much cheaper for the networks to sell one unified cable product than it is to sell three. The law of diminishing returns tells me that this will push networks into having 1 cable offering instead of triplicating them. The law of economy tells me that eliminating duplicated conference bureaucracies will eventually lead schools to seeing the benefit of one bigger umbrella.

I think we see similarly on most things. I see your points and I understand all the obligations, but your post specifically mentions getting Clemson and FSU for 19 & 20 and we both know the ACC is dead, as far as making competitive money and maybe as a conference, if that happens. So I was going off the scenario that FSU and Clemson are possible for the SEC (which they are if the SEC is willing to alienate ESPN a bit). If they are, the SEC would be much better served going east for the first 4 schools, IMO. That is what I was responding too. I understand your reasoning for the rest and agree with most of it, but why mention Clemson and FSU, if like you said ESPN would not allow it. I agree that the B12 is the most likely to be eaten by the realignment wolves.

To address your points:

So in conclusion:
1. ESPN will not pay the SEC to raid the ACC. So outside of the ACC making room for more market expansion there is no real target for the SEC in the ACC. That leaves only the Big 12.

Agree. ESPN is an ACC ally. However, I think ESPN would love for the SEC to take NCST and probably VT from the ACC. UNC and UVA would not however.

2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.

Agree, if they think 4 or less conferences is the future. Which is almost certain.

3. I'm sure the LHN is proof enough that ESPN would like to lock up the Horns more fully in either of their two conferences.

They definitely want UT. They have first option, if UT goes independent too.

4. Oklahoma would be a coup and OSU is going to be worth it to get them.

OU is a coup; but, I think taking OSU to get them is a mistake. It dilutes OU's value IMO. If I am the SEC, I take one or the other, but not both. Honestly, I don't want 3rd Texas school either. OU is big in Texas, especially northern TX and DFW. Those 4 schools is just a little too much when the SEC has been going for fresh markets IMO. Baylor and OSU add nothing in this situation. OU and Texas are all the value. A&M, Texas and OU locks down Texahoma. In that situation OSU and Baylor are just mouths to feed. They have more value, if you DON'T have OU and Texas, as then they help deliver or solidify a market.

5. The most logical place for their fans, and for familiarity outside of the Big 12 is the SEC.

PAC has a lot of support too among Horn and Sooner fans, but I agree the SEC is a better, closer fit.

6. The SEC is very interested in improving its academic standing. Texas helps, Oklahoma meets the mean, BAYLOR enhances the mean (Texas Tech harms it) and Oklahoma State would harm it but nowhere near as much as Texas Tech.

Actually TTU is likely to be climbing the rankings and be a much better school than OSU long term. According to a poster who is involved in education in Texas I trust on another site, TX wants another T1 public school along with A&M and Texas and TTU will be that school. They would like to model themselves after the CA system. They are working towards getting AAU (though I doubt they ever make it since that club wants to reduce membership more than raise it) with UT and some PAC heavyweights. OSU is not and will not get that kind of support.

7. So if the SEC had to take two teams to land the last two prizes Oklahoma State might be a must, and Baylor would be the best travel partner for the Horns.

My guess is TTU is the Texas partner, unless they are going to the PAC alone. I think doubling up in OK is a mistake, taking a 3rd TX school to get Texas would probably pay off, but taking Baylor dilutes things just like taking OSU does. A&M and Texas together own Texas. If you have both you don't need another school. I wish the original B12 had taken just UT and A&M. If they did NU never leaves since the OU/NU annual rivalry continues. The extra 2 schools that TX politicians required definitely diluted the payouts for the B12. A&M would have a hard time swallowing Texas joining, but they would choke on Baylor. That is some bad blood that just got worse when Baylor was threatening lawsuits during the SEC move as 10th can attest too I am sure.

8. If Texas did not insist on a travel companion then Kansas would be fine, but then that makes them the most extreme outlier in the SEC and I doubt seriously they want that distinction, even though the SEC I'm sure would be happier to have them.

Agree. The B1G is number 1 on most people's wish list. Though if you landed UT and OU, a lot of opinions at KU about a SEC move might get changed. My opinion is more situational. I could be happy in the SEC, B1G, or PAC depending on how realignment plays out and who would be in the conference with us once it is finished. I really do not want the ACC because outside of a few schools, like FSU, I am not a fond of the cultural fit and fan bases, but if we stayed with 6-8 other B12 schools the ACC might be ok in the end.

Honestly, I think Baylor and OSU would be ok adds for 19 and 20 for the SEC if that is required to land Texas and OU. But that is a lot of duplicated markets and schools that take more than they give at 18. If I was the SEC commish and going to add those 4 schools, I would just go ahead and go to 20 with two of KU/KSU, ISU, and WVU. Even better, try to get OU or TX to drop a little brother and take one in KS, IA, and WV. Then at least you get 3 (or 4) new markets instead of 1. I would also take TTU over Baylor if I had my choice, but would take whichever TX and A&M preferred in the end since they would be a superfluous add anyway, just like OSU would be.

You can always go to 24 later with FSU, Clemson, plus two if that ever becomes an option later. Not much change from 20 scheduling wise.

I really think that the SEC is in the best position in realignment. They have great football and though their BB is weak at the middle and bottom the top 2, UK and UF, are great BB anchors and have been winning titles. They have fantastic baseball for a spring sport for their network. They have strong contiguous options to the east and west. They also have the brand strength as a conference to realistically take a #2 school and turn it into the #1 school in a state (see USC/Clemson and, maybe, A&M/Texas, if things continue like they have the last couple years). I think every big brother fears the SEC taking a little brother because of this (see UNC/NCST and UVA/VT). They have the number one sports network in their back pocket and a new conference network starting up. I think whatever happens, the SEC will come out ahead.

Love the discussion on this board as it is generally very informed and civil. Thanks for letting me contribute.

(05-15-2014 12:00 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 02:40 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's get back to the point. Given all of the data if the SEC expanded from the Big 12 we would be best served to move to 18 with Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I don't care about doubling markets those are the best athletic properties that are within a reasonable distance and have a more or less Southerly culture. I wouldn't call all of them Old South by any means.

If the SEC wants to get to 20 there are really only two programs in the ACC worth having for their merit: Clemson and Florida State.

Face it guys the SEC leads the nation in total revenue as a conference, even more than the mighty Big 10. The SEC leads the nation in viewing audience by 900,000 over the Big 10. We can talk markets until the cows come home but these six are the best football additions we can make to the conference and most of them have multiple sports at which they excel.

There is nothing for the SEC in North Carolina or Virginia other than a big market. Their product would weaken football, total revenue, and attendance (which the SEC also leads by 5,000 per game average), but would improve hoops and at least be on par in baseball.

As a football fan any of those 6 to get us to 16, or 18, but better yet to 20.

Culturally that makes some sense; however, if the SEC can pull FSU and Clemson it would be better off going east and picking up a VA and NC school as well because without Clemson, and especially FSU, the ACC is getting a much smaller payout from ESPN. That would be much better than adding Baylor (who has struggled in FB outside the last few years with Broyles and is going to be Vandy in the SEC) and OSU just to land OU and UT. Three schools in Texas and 2 in OK would be a far cry from Slive's recent expansion outlook. With FSU and Clemson you would duplicate as well, but FL is a large state and the SEC would own it then, SC = OK basically, but the SEC would probably land VT and NCST at least (if not UVA and UNC) when the ACC comes apart with FSU & Clemson departing.

Gaining VA and NC would beat out gaining OK. Then just add 19 and 20 from either the ACC remnants or ask a couple B12 schools. B12 schools not named UT, KU, and OU would probably kill their first born to be in the stable and powerful SEC after the last few tumultuous years of B12 membership and one or 2 of the brand schools might even join with those additions and without little brothers if the money was right.

What you are saying is logical from a particular point of view, that of markets. My point is that while ESPN and FOX might want us to think in terms of markets the truth is the SEC already has the highest average in revenue production, the highest attendance, and the highest average revenue generation of all of the conferences. While having North Carolina and Virginia would be nice market wise the truth is they water down our brand.

I totally agree that the key to the destruction of the ACC is Florida State and Clemson and I stated that over 2 years ago when pointing out that if the SEC wanted to raid the ACC that was the key that unlocked the door. But I also pointed out that ESPN has no desire for the SEC to be anything to the ACC except for an escape hatch should the Big 10's earnings disparity with the ACC come into play. And only then will you see ACC schools leaving for the SEC and at that point ESPN will simply use the opportunity to cull the ACC herd.

Networks drive this realignment. My point in the post was that from the numbers perspective those schools fit the best. They tend to have the best attendance, earn the most, and generate the most interest (Baylor excepted).

Now stop and think about the SEC additions in the last two rounds of realignment. In 1992 the SEC's main objectives fell apart and we took 1 of our primary targets, Arkansas and took South Carolina to keep options for expansion into North Carolina open. We at that time wanted Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Arkansas from the West. We went after Florida State and initially Clemson in the East. In short Jayhawk we viewed them to be the best fits for us then and we still see them that way now. Who were the last two additions? The sure weren't from the ACC! ESPN won't permit it, as they refuse to pay for it. So the SEC added one of its primary targets from Big 12, Texas A&M, and ESPN encouraged the taking of Missouri which in 1992 prior to the formation of the Big 12 didn't seem like an opportunity as a member of the Big 8. So by taking Arkansas in '92 Missouri becomes an unexpected option in 2012.

In the thread SEC Realignment Just by the Numbers I make it fairly clear that there are very few schools that can add to the totals of the SEC. Texas adds to them all. Oklahoma adds to the average slightly. Florida State is a wash. Clemson is a wash. Everyone else really drags the numbers down.

So why Baylor & Oklahoma State? If that is the price of the last two prizes it is doable. An addition of 4 in the West permits Alabama and Auburn to move East. That reunites the core of the old SEC, gives Texas and Oklahoma what no other conference can: L.S.U., Arkansas, A&M, Missouri, and the two Mississippi schools. That with rivals Oklahoma State, or Baylor/Texas Tech (which although in the state of Texas is a geographical outlier) is as good as they will find anywhere to play. It is certainly a more meaningful schedule to their fan bases than what either the PAC or Big 10 have to offer. And it affords their minor sports relatively easy travel.

Then there is the whole cultural fit thing. Let me ask you, "Who are the cultural fits for millionaires?" Other millionaires, right? The SEC has 6 of the top 10 earners in college athletics. Oklahoma and Texas are also top 10 earners. There are more economic peers and athletic peers of Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC than anywhere else they can go.

So the point here is simple. The SEC will play the angles that better their case to land those two schools. We offer affordable logistics for the fans, old rival favorites for them to play, and athletic and revenue peers. The Big 10 offers academic peers, not logistically close, no real established rivalries, and as an AAU school already Texas would benefit some from CIC projects, but probably not enough to swing the deal. The Big 10 would certainly offer the opportunity to make money on television contracts, but then when it all comes out in the open the SEC will still be close enough on that front as well. The PAC offers what?...........I'm still waiting?......... I'll tell you what they offer. A few competitive athletic programs, a lousy fan base that has other things to do, a travel nightmare, and less money by far than the Big 10 or SEC, and the greatest academic disparity between schools of any of the other conferences except the Big 12. And for all of the academic peer garbage I read on the Big 12 boards Texas is less a peer of the 4 California schools and more a peer of the Big 10. Oklahoma is about on par with Auburn in most demographics and well behind Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, and Alabama. OU for all their talk basically meets the mean of the SEC. And Kansas is in the same shape but does have the distinction of AAU. Texas in the SEC would have 1 superior and 2 peers. Vanderbilt would be their superior, and Florida and Texas A&M their academic peers. Texas would rank #2 academically in the SEC. They would be about 4th or maybe 5th in the Big 10 and would be either 5th or 6th in the PAC, and about 6th in the ACC behind Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Boston College, and North Carolina. They are either behind or about the same as Miami so they might even be 7th. So while they are 1st in the Big 12 the truth is right now any conference is an academic improvement for the Horns.

So in conclusion:
1. ESPN will not pay the SEC to raid the ACC. So outside of the ACC making room for more market expansion there is no real target for the SEC in the ACC. That leaves only the Big 12.
2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.
3. I'm sure the LHN is proof enough that ESPN would like to lock up the Horns more fully in either of their two conferences.
4. Oklahoma would be a coup and OSU is going to be worth it to get them.
5. The most logical place for their fans, and for familiarity outside of the Big 12 is the SEC.
6. The SEC is very interested in improving its academic standing. Texas helps, Oklahoma meets the mean, BAYLOR enhances the mean (Texas Tech harms it) and Oklahoma State would harm it but nowhere near as much as Texas Tech.
7. So if the SEC had to take two teams to land the last two prizes Oklahoma State might be a must, and Baylor would be the best travel partner for the Horns.
8. If Texas did not insist on a travel companion then Kansas would be fine, but then that makes them the most extreme outlier in the SEC and I doubt seriously they want that distinction even though the SEC I'm sure would be happier to have them.

So JayhawkMVP I totally understand your perspective, but it is one that does not take into consideration the existing contractual obligations or the preferences of the one who writes the checks for the SEC, ACC, and a large portion of the funds for Texas, and a tidy sum for Kansas. Kansas gets out of their contract about the time the Big 12 GOR expires, but Texas is under obligation until 2031. And that's why if anything further happens I expect the SEC to further expand from the Big 12, unless N.C. State and Virginia Tech are given to the SEC to make room for a pod of 4 from the Big 12 for the ACC. But all things considered, the attitudes and desires of Virginia Tech and N.C. State, the travel expenses, and the likelihood that conferences could consolidate further, I suspect that the SEC adds between 4 to 6 Big 12 schools and the ACC adds 1 more (West Virginia or Connecticut). Then if there is further consolidation into 2 Mega conferences the old conference boundaries become the new divisions with a few geographical changes.

In a contract the one who pays controls. The networks are in control. It's much cheaper for the networks to sell one unified cable product than it is to sell three. The law of diminishing returns tells me that this will push networks into having 1 cable offering instead of triplicating them. The law of economy tells me that eliminating duplicated conference bureaucracies will eventually lead schools to seeing the benefit of one bigger umbrella.

I think we see similarly on most things. I see your points and I understand all the obligations, but your post specifically mentions getting Clemson and FSU for 19 & 20 and we both know the ACC is dead, as far as making competitive money and maybe as a conference, if that happens. So I was going off the scenario that FSU and Clemson are possible for the SEC (which they are if the SEC is willing to alienate ESPN a bit). If they are, the SEC would be much better served going east for the first 4 schools, IMO. That is what I was responding too. I understand your reasoning for the rest and agree with most of it, but why mention Clemson and FSU, if like you said ESPN would not allow it. I agree that the B12 is the most likely to be eaten by the realignment wolves.

To address your points:

So in conclusion:
1. ESPN will not pay the SEC to raid the ACC. So outside of the ACC making room for more market expansion there is no real target for the SEC in the ACC. That leaves only the Big 12.

Agree. ESPN is an ACC ally. However, I think ESPN would love for the SEC to take NCST and probably VT from the ACC. UNC and UVA would not however.

2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.

Agree, if they think 4 or less conferences is the future. Which is almost certain.

3. I'm sure the LHN is proof enough that ESPN would like to lock up the Horns more fully in either of their two conferences.

They definitely want UT. They have first option, if UT goes independent too.

4. Oklahoma would be a coup and OSU is going to be worth it to get them.

OU is a coup; but, I think taking OSU to get them is a mistake. It dilutes OU's value IMO. If I am the SEC, I take one or the other, but not both. Honestly, I don't want 3rd Texas school either. OU is big in Texas, especially northern TX and DFW. Those 4 schools is just a little too much when the SEC has been going for fresh markets IMO. Baylor and OSU add nothing in this situation. OU and Texas are all the value. A&M, Texas and OU locks down Texahoma. In that situation OSU and Baylor are just mouths to feed. They have more value, if you DON'T have OU and Texas, as then they help deliver or solidify a market.

5. The most logical place for their fans, and for familiarity outside of the Big 12 is the SEC.

PAC has a lot of support too among Horn and Sooner fans, but I agree the SEC is a better, closer fit.

6. The SEC is very interested in improving its academic standing. Texas helps, Oklahoma meets the mean, BAYLOR enhances the mean (Texas Tech harms it) and Oklahoma State would harm it but nowhere near as much as Texas Tech.

Actually TTU is likely to be climbing the rankings and be a much better school than OSU long term. According to a poster who is involved in education in Texas I trust on another site, TX wants another T1 public school along with A&M and Texas and TTU will be that school. They would like to model themselves after the CA system. They are working towards getting AAU (though I doubt they ever make it since that club wants to reduce membership more than raise it) with UT and some PAC heavyweights. OSU is not and will not get that kind of support.

7. So if the SEC had to take two teams to land the last two prizes Oklahoma State might be a must, and Baylor would be the best travel partner for the Horns.

My guess is TTU is the Texas partner, unless they are going to the PAC alone. I think doubling up in OK is a mistake, taking a 3rd TX school to get Texas would probably pay off, but taking Baylor dilutes things just like taking OSU does. A&M and Texas together own Texas. If you have both you don't need another school. I wish the original B12 had taken just UT and A&M. If they did NU never leaves since the OU/NU annual rivalry continues. The extra 2 schools that TX politicians required definitely diluted the payouts for the B12. A&M would have a hard time swallowing Texas joining, but they would choke on Baylor. That is some bad blood that just got worse when Baylor was threatening lawsuits during the SEC move as 10th can attest too I am sure.

8. If Texas did not insist on a travel companion then Kansas would be fine, but then that makes them the most extreme outlier in the SEC and I doubt seriously they want that distinction, even though the SEC I'm sure would be happier to have them.

Agree. The B1G is number 1 on most people's wish list. Though if you landed UT and OU, a lot of opinions at KU about a SEC move might get changed. My opinion is more situational. I could be happy in the SEC, B1G, or PAC depending on how realignment plays out and who would be in the conference with us once it is finished. I really do not want the ACC because outside of a few schools, like FSU, I am not a fond of the cultural fit and fan bases, but if we stayed with 6-8 other B12 schools the ACC might be ok in the end.

Honestly, I think Baylor and OSU would be ok adds for 19 and 20 for the SEC if that is required to land Texas and OU. But that is a lot of duplicated markets and schools that take more than they give at 18. If I was the SEC commish and going to add those 4 schools, I would just go ahead and go to 20 with two of KU/KSU, ISU, and WVU. Even better, try to get OU or TX to drop a little brother and take one in KS, IA, and WV. Then at least you get 3 (or 4) new markets instead of 1. I would also take TTU over Baylor if I had my choice, but would take whichever TX and A&M preferred in the end since they would be a superfluous add anyway, just like OSU would be.

You can always go to 24 later with FSU, Clemson, plus two if that ever becomes an option later. Not much change from 20 scheduling wise.

I really think that the SEC is in the best position in realignment. They have great football and though their BB is weak at the middle and bottom the top 2, UK and UF, are great BB anchors and have been winning titles. They have fantastic baseball for a spring sport for their network. They have strong contiguous options to the east and west. They also have the brand strength as a conference to realistically take a #2 school and turn it into the #1 school in a state (see USC/Clemson and, maybe, A&M/Texas, if things continue like they have the last couple years). I think every big brother fears the SEC taking a little brother because of this (see UNC/NCST and UVA/VT). They have the number one sports network in their back pocket and a new conference network starting up. I think whatever happens, the SEC will come out ahead.

Love the discussion on this board as it is generally very informed and civil. Thanks for letting me contribute.

Hey we're happy to have you. You're our kind of guy. I mentioned F.S.U. and Clemson as an ideal and was just saying if you go to 20 you might as well go with the best football schools available and if you have to take little brothers to get UT & OU then O.S.U. and Baylor are not that bad.

But I totally agree there is no need of a Baylor, or Texas Tech, or O.S.U. if we could just land Texas and Oklahoma. Kansas and perhaps I.S.U. make perfect sense then. That's one school at our mean and 3 AAU schools. Then if we ever expanded further from the ACC we might stand a better chance of not taking little brother there either.

As to WVU there are many reasons that would likely not be as doable as many might think. I'll PM you sometime about the issues there. Ideally from the ACC North Carolina, Virginia/Virginia Tech (almost a wash between academics and levels of attendance and support), Florida State, and Clemson would be the choices. Duke if it was necessary to land UNC. Georgia Tech if the expansion was broad enough and that's about it.

Sorry if my assertions were tending toward the compromises for attainment of the goals and my numbered reasons were concrete. There is a disparity between the two, but the latter stands. ESPN is the obstacle and I don't think we'll get ACC schools unless ESPN is afraid of losing the key ones elsewhere.

(05-13-2014 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  snip

2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.

Just a point of clarification JR, Why do you think ESPN would prefer to use the SEC for asset acquisition over the ACC, especially considering the ACC needs the most assistance in trying to justify parity with the B1G/SEC?

(05-15-2014 09:05 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-13-2014 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  snip

2. ESPN will use the SEC to more fully acquire property they want.

Just a point of clarification JR, Why do you think ESPN would prefer to use the SEC for asset acquisition over the ACC, especially considering the ACC needs the most assistance in trying to justify parity with the B1G/SEC?

There are three products out there that ESPN would like to have. Two of them they have under an extended T3 contract, Texas until 2031, Kansas until 2025. Oklahoma is under obligation to FOX but the buyout is doable. If everything stays as it is the ACC has one slot if N.D. comes on board, two if they don't. The SEC has two slots period and that's assuming we only stay at 16. Since I don't see a hybrid Notre Dame deal being offered to anyone not already named Texas one slot in the ACC isn't going to get the coverage of those 3 done. So without a workaround like Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for 3 in the ACC the likelihood would be utilizing the SEC to shelter two (Oklahoma and Kansas) and the ACC to lure Texas with a Notre Dame type deal.

But, none of that works unless 5 other Big 12 programs can be taken. The Big 10 isn't going to help out if Kansas and Oklahoma are off the table. And, I just don't see Texas forcing the Big 10 on its fan base.

The PAC isn't going to help out either without Texas and Oklahoma in the deal.

The ACC and SEC should work together to get it done, but at what cost? Iowa State, West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech would likely have to be accounted for. You might sub Baylor for either Texas Tech or West Virginia.

The best way to do this would be to zipper the product.

Texas as a hybrid, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. to the ACC.

Kansas, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and Baylor to the SEC.

We can handle Iowa State's geography much better than the ACC and with Kansas they would cement Missouri. Oklahoma State and Baylor would give us enough of DFW to make it worthwhile. Baylor is also an academic plus in addition to being an accessible road game for L.S.U., A&M and Arky.

The big problem here is that with Kansas and Iowa State we are stepping out of our cultural comfort zone.

Also remember that right now the Big 12 earns more than the ACC. The SEC is closer and is a step up for them. If you wanted to lure away a top 10 revenue school where do you park them? Where they exponentially increase in a conference that already has 6 top ten revenue schools (the SEC) or in a conference that only has a couple in the top 20 in revenue production and none in the top ten (the ACC). Logistics, income, and brand are all better in the SEC.

JR, after reading your last comment, I'm not sure that the SEC taking all 8 of the Big 12 schools (minus Baylor and TCU) would be the end of the world. If we split the value of those schools with the ACC, we ensure their survival. Absorbing the Big 12 puts us at 24 schools, and as you said, the valuation of the Big 12 right now compared to the SEC on a per school basis is closer than the ACC. If you eliminate Baylor and TCU, I'm sure that value per time rises substantially. That move likely prompts the aforementioned Big 10 absorption of at least 9 of the PAC schools, putting them at 23. At that point, splitting the ACC for the SEC and Big 10 to get to 32 schools is elementary. Your Big 10/SEC/Continental Conference setup is very similar to this approach. Sure, I'd love to hold out and just add Oklahoma and Kansas, but as you've spelled out, that is a long shot on several levels without the PAC giving in and taking all the little brothers and probably TCU.

jhawk, I've noticed a few mentions here and there about Texas Tech being groomed for a better academic status, as well. I think that is a smart move by the state of Texas. As locals can attest much better than me, west Texas is pretty much its own state, and having a strong school for them that facilitates their needs will bring quality growth. If Texas Tech can get to Virginia Tech academic levels, they would be an excellent stand alone addition for the PAC and perhaps a palatable addition if the SEC could get them as a package with UT. Considering the size and scope of the state of Texas' influence, I do not think having the top 3 schools in that state as part of the conference would be too much to handle, especially with TAMU taking the role of dissenter whenever they can.

(05-15-2014 11:36 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  JR, after reading your last comment, I'm not sure that the SEC taking all 8 of the Big 12 schools (minus Baylor and TCU) would be the end of the world. If we split the value of those schools with the ACC, we ensure their survival. Absorbing the Big 12 puts us at 24 schools, and as you said, the valuation of the Big 12 right now compared to the SEC on a per school basis is closer than the ACC. If you eliminate Baylor and TCU, I'm sure that value per time rises substantially. That move likely prompts the aforementioned Big 10 absorption of at least 9 of the PAC schools, putting them at 23. At that point, splitting the ACC for the SEC and Big 10 to get to 32 schools is elementary. Your Big 10/SEC/Continental Conference setup is very similar to this approach. Sure, I'd love to hold out and just add Oklahoma and Kansas, but as you've spelled out, that is a long shot on several levels without the PAC giving in and taking all the little brothers and probably TCU.

jhawk, I've noticed a few mentions here and there about Texas Tech being groomed for a better academic status, as well. I think that is a smart move by the state of Texas. As locals can attest much better than me, west Texas is pretty much its own state, and having a strong school for them that facilitates their needs will bring quality growth. If Texas Tech can get to Virginia Tech academic levels, they would be an excellent stand alone addition for the PAC and perhaps a palatable addition if the SEC could get them as a package with UT. Considering the size and scope of the state of Texas' influence, I do not think having the top 3 schools in that state as part of the conference would be too much to handle, especially with TAMU taking the role of dissenter whenever they can.

BBB, your thinking would do a couple of things as you suggested. It would eliminate any chance of the Big 10 moving down the center of the country leaving only an extremely sparse list of candidates in the East outside of the ACC, and would force them to look West. Secondly, it does curtail any way for the ACC to play catch up financially. But again if we take the 8 Big 12 schools that you are speaking of we stand at 22 schools. I'm fine with cutting T.C.U. but I would ask you to take a look at the metrics between Baylor and W.V.U. before chucking the Bears. But I do agree that 4 Texas schools might be stretching it too far.

Two 32 team conferences would be nice, but I still like the buffer conference. It will be necessary to keep good will. I'm not sure you leave that conference much to work with if the Big 10 and SEC each go to 32.

But given the SEC's options, we could do a lot worse than taking enough of the Big 12 to dissolve them. But on the other hand I think at 24 schools we remain much more profitable. That's why I suggested starting the Continental Conference at 25 million. It's a boost for all of the Big 12 and ACC and PAC schools that don't make the jump to the Big 10 and SEC. And those schools that accepted a Continental position would count toward the dissolution numbers as well.

Tech is one of several public universities that are competing for additional funding with the hope of eventually making them a "Tier One" school. The others include Houston, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio UT-El Paso and North Texas. "Tier One" isn't well defined because the politicians don't want to promise too much (like for instance, they know none of these schools have much of a chance at AAU status given the number of better schools ahead of them waiting for membership and the organizations desire to shrink, rather than grow, membership.)

UT-Dallas, Houston and Tech are generally considered the front runners but they all have issues.

UT-Dallas has the best academics of the 3 and is a Dallas/Houston school which helps because those two argue that such big cities should not be without a "Tier One". However, they have the problem of being a UT system school and the argument is that giving them more money is playing favorites with one system over the others. With UT-Austin already in possession of so much money, the argument is "you want another strong UT school? You pay them out of your PUF funds!"

Tech has OK academics and probably the most political clout on their side. Their big issue, is as always, location. Tech is really far away from 90% of the state's population. The closest major population center is Fort Worth which is still over 5 hours away. The argument from the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio crowd is that their areas are growing like wild fire but we're putting the next Tier One out in Lubbock and not in their cities? They argue its more fair that a few talented kids from W. Texas drive East than lots of talented kids from E. Texas drive west.

Houston is who I think is going to actually get it. They have good academics are not a UT system school and are located in Texas' biggest city which makes research partnerships with the city and major corporations much easier and there really isn't much of a negative case against them. Their only flaw in this competition is that they don't have as many powerful friends in the Texas legislature, but their lack of negatives compared to the other candidates makes them the strongest candidate. This fight for funding and status is the source of the UH/TTU angst we see so much on these boards.

(05-15-2014 12:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Tech is one of several public universities that are competing for additional funding with the hope of eventually making them a "Tier One" school. The others include Houston, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio UT-El Paso and North Texas. "Tier One" isn't well defined because the politicians don't want to promise too much (like for instance, they know none of these schools have much of a chance at AAU status given the number of better schools ahead of them waiting for membership and the organizations desire to shrink, rather than grow, membership.)

UT-Dallas, Houston and Tech are generally considered the front runners but they all have issues.

UT-Dallas has the best academics of the 3 and is a Dallas/Houston school which helps because those two argue that such big cities should not be without a "Tier One". However, they have the problem of being a UT system school and the argument is that giving them more money is playing favorites with one system over the others. With UT-Austin already in possession of so much money, the argument is "you want another strong UT school? You pay them out of your PUF funds!"

Tech has OK academics and probably the most political clout on their side. Their big issue, is as always, location. Tech is really far away from 90% of the state's population. The closest major population center is Fort Worth which is still over 5 hours away. The argument from the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio crowd is that their areas are growing like wild fire but we're putting the next Tier One out in Lubbock and not in their cities? They argue its more fair that a few talented kids from W. Texas drive East than lots of talented kids from E. Texas drive west.

Houston is who I think is going to actually get it. They have good academics are not a UT system school and are located in Texas' biggest city which makes research partnerships with the city and major corporations much easier and there really isn't much of a negative case against them. Their only flaw in this competition is that they don't have as many powerful friends in the Texas legislature, but their lack of negatives compared to the other candidates makes them the strongest candidate. This fight for funding and status is the source of the UH/TTU angst we see so much on these boards.

10th, would you say that the SEC has no need of Houston to gain that market? It seems to me that if there is one market that A&M truly delivers it is Houston. My reticence with Tech is logistics. They are truly in a no man's land. I mean really they are still a ways away from Arizona even if they improved academics enough to get a serious look from the PAC. I've often thought that Tech would be a good bridge to DFW if the PAC took them and T.C.U. How do you perceive it?

I think A&M and LSU deliver plenty of the Houston market. UH's big downside athletically is that they are still primarily a very large commuter with lots of non-traditional students who just don't care about UH athletics. Even during their brief stay in the SWC, UH never had good attendance unless they were playing UT, A&M or Arky who brought their fan bases in to sell out the Astro Dome.

I think the PAC has not given up on Texas as their logical eastern border and while I think that they want UT, if they couldn't have them they might eventually compromise with some combination of TTU/TCU/SMU/UH and or one or both of the OK schools to get into the TX TV markets and the CTZ.

JR, if you ever look at those Red State/Blue State maps, the cultural disparity between the South and the Plains might not be that great. It's not a perfect alignment, but there might more overlap than one would initially expect.

(05-15-2014 02:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  JR, if you ever look at those Red State/Blue State maps, the cultural disparity between the South and the Plains might not be that great. It's not a perfect alignment, but there might more overlap than one would initially expect.

Vandiver a lot of the small Midwestern states are fairly conservative, but I wasn't questioning the politics as being part of the culture, but rather the idea of Kansas and Iowa State being in the SEC. I just believe that there are boatloads of fans that would have a knee jerk reaction to it and they wouldn't even be thinking about politics. They would be thinking that Kansas was where Dorothy went over the rainbow and that Iowa is a Yankee cornfield (although several of the best looking women I've met were Iowans). Face it, Jayhawks and Cyclones don't exactly scream "South". Don't read too much into it. Rural is rural everywhere and urban is urban and that is the real difference between red and blue anyway as far as voters are concerned. As far as I'm concerned there's not a damned bit of difference between the two parties. And I think Iowa State and Kansas would be fine. I'm just not sure that the average SEC fan will be able to wrap their heads around it easily, that's all.

I'll try to keep this short.
4 x 16 is the goal for multiple reasons.
In order for 4 x 16 to work, Texas must go to the PAC (ESPN will get their due somehow as a payoff for their LHN investment).
Texas Tech will end up going with Texas.
If any school gets left out it will be TCU......
Everything else is "up for grabs", (although I do think JR is correct in that Baylor will end up in the SEC).

(05-15-2014 08:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  I'll try to keep this short.
4 x 16 is the goal for multiple reasons.
In order for 4 x 16 to work, Texas must go to the PAC (ESPN will get their due somehow as a payoff for their LHN investment).
Texas Tech will end up going with Texas.
If any school gets left out it will be TCU......
Everything else is "up for grabs", (although I do think JR is correct in that Baylor will end up in the SEC).

And at this point 4 x 16 would be a reasonable way to end things, if it can be pulled off, and I'm not yet convinced of that. If Texas goes PAC with Texas Tech it will be interesting to see how things wrap up. Who do you think the ACC will get in that and why? My concerns will be that the SEC and Big 10 will distance themselves from the ACC and PAC and that the disparity there will only lead to more instability in the future. I felt strongly that the ACC needed Texas to at least bring a bit more parity in income.

(05-15-2014 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  I'll try to keep this short.
4 x 16 is the goal for multiple reasons.
In order for 4 x 16 to work, Texas must go to the PAC (ESPN will get their due somehow as a payoff for their LHN investment).
Texas Tech will end up going with Texas.
If any school gets left out it will be TCU......
Everything else is "up for grabs", (although I do think JR is correct in that Baylor will end up in the SEC).

And at this point 4 x 16 would be a reasonable way to end things, if it can be pulled off, and I'm not yet convinced of that. If Texas goes PAC with Texas Tech it will be interesting to see how things wrap up. Who do you think the ACC will get in that and why? My concerns will be that the SEC and Big 10 will distance themselves from the ACC and PAC and that the disparity there will only lead to more instability in the future. I felt strongly that the ACC needed Texas to at least bring a bit more parity in income.

Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. West Virginia goes to the SEC to take Vandy's spot.
ESPN will market the ACC and the SEC together.
ESPN gains a piece of the PAC network or at least broadcast rights in a large part of the country.

West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and South Carolina make a good pod don't you think.
Georgia, Auburn, Alabama and Florida.
Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas and LSU.
Mizzou, A & M, Baylor, Okie State/Oklahoma.