(12-09-2014 04:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:39 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  That's a good question. I can't see it happening with just the B1G and SEC involved because I think the B1G just doesn't like enough B12 schools as additions (Texas, OU, and KU). I think another conference would be involved (likely the ACC, maybe the PAC); however, based on what you outlined in your post this is my opinion. The B1G would be the problem because to this point they have had every member be AAU at least at the time of joining (NU later booted out). Academics would keep some B12 schools from even being considered. If the SEC and B1G decided to kill the B12 by taking 4 each, but splitting OU and Texas, my wild ass guess would be:

B1G adds Texas, Kansas, ISU, and TCU.
SEC adds Oklahoma, WVU, TTU, and Oklahoma State.

B1G
Texas - AAU. National football brand. This is the largest money addition, by far, for them in CFB for their network. The B1G white whale above even ND. Seems averse to the SEC for some reason as well. Gets them the #1 program in the fertile FB recruiting grounds of Texas.
Kansas - AAU. National BB brand. Along with Texas the best B1G fit in the B12 as an AAU state flagship.
ISU - AAU. Doubles up in Iowa, but this is a compromise agreement and they have the academics to make it. WVU might also get consideration instead, but if I was the SEC I would insist on WVU since I think they are the 4th most valuable school in the B12. The value of the UT addition makes doubling up in Iowa more palatable.
TCU - Texas would require at least one Texas school, if OU is not with them IMO. TCU is a religious university in name only now and a good academic school), but maybe Texas Tech if they throw out academics (not likely). TCU is in DFW (their biggest positive) so it is an easy location to get to compared to Baylor or TTU. Rice would be the best school for this spot since they are AAU, but they are not in the B12 and would not kill the conference. OSU and TTU are just too far under the academics bar unless the B1G just said to hell with acadmics (never happening). TTU would have a chance if the state of Texas delivers on making them a T1 university in the next decade. Baylor is good academically, but I think the only religious school the B1G is willing to add would be ND. TTU would be Texas's first choice, but they know currently TTU academics are a no go for the B1G, and thus, the "Tech problem" tOSU former president referred too.

SEC
Oklahoma - National FB brand. The most SEC like program in the B12. Gets you influence in north Texas down to DFW.
WVU - Gets you more exposure in the north with some influence into D.C. and Pittsburgh. Fourth most valuable school in the B12.
Texas Tech (or Baylor) - TTU is the much larger school and should be a safer long term bet, plus between them and A&M you would have east and west Texas covered. Baylor is the hot school right now and has a lot of money and for a private school is fairly large, but can they maintain it. I have serious doubts, especially in the SEC and after Briles. They do have deep pockets though. TTU definitely has more fans. A&M and Baylor have a lot of bad blood and Baylor did not exactly endear themselves with SEC leadership with their threatened lawsuits over the A&M move which could hurt them.
OSU - I would choose them over KSU. You only lose out on a few million KS by not taking KSU for the SECN and Snyder is not going to be there much longer and outside of him they have been the worst FBS school in history. They do not deliver much of the state (this is just FB, in BB KU would bleed into other areas and KSU's small stronghold would shrink even more). OSU makes OU happy and means the SEC would have by far the strongest presence in Texahoma (4 schools vs. 2 for the B1G). OU can't play them and Texas both OOC without losing a ton of scheduling flexibility. This way Texas and OU now becomes a B1G/SEC rivalry game. The ratings would be crazy each year. The SEC and B1G fans would tune in for early season bragging rights. OU would probably require them to join (like they did in 2011). OSU also has more revenue and fans.

So my schools out of luck in this scenario are KSU and Baylor (or TTU). If it is KSU and TTU the PAC might take them eventually. Baylor is in a bad spot if it is them and the SEC is not interested. The PAC is not going to take them and they would be on an island in the ACC and probably would not draw enough interest on their own in Texas for them to be worth adding.

Drawbacks for the SEC are only adding OK and WV to their footprint and doubling up in Texas (a good idea) and OK (a negative), but they get the #2, #4, #5, and #6 schools in value in the B12 IMO. Since they already had a Texas school not as big a pay off for them as for the B1G as far as networks are concerned. Nationally for T1 and T2 they got the strongest B12 football program and a national power in OU and 3 solid ones. In bb they got 3 solids ones and 1 dog (TTU).

The B1G drawbacks are doubling up in IA (negative) and Texas (neutral since they have the whale Texas) and one schools is not AAU. The B1G gains in a big way by adding the state of Texas, with a KS bonus, to their network. Gets a major recruiting ground in their footprint. In B12 value gets the #1 (by far), #3, #7, and #10 programs. Add a national power in Texas in FB, 1 solid program and 2 dogs in FB (KU and ISU). In basketball they gain 1 national program, 2 good schools, and 1 dog (TCU).

The B1G also gains two conference locations for early season baseball games and two powerhouse baseball programs.

I highly doubt Texas would do that. I think they would have a better chance explaining going with the ACC if the ACC agreed to a partial membership.

I'm of the opinion today, that the likelihood of ESPN permitting anything to happen to the ACC as long as Notre Dame's full commitment is a possibility is nil. Therefore the SEC should use its natural advantages to end the realignment era as the dominant conference by doing the following. We should encourage ESPN's profit from the SEC network by getting them to assist the conference in landing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia all at once.

We need a second Texas school and if we land the Longhorns we won't need any other. Oklahoma brings history and content galore and delivers another 3.8 million viewers. Kansas delivers hoops and another state. West Virginia gains us a Northeastern corner for our footprint. By going for and gaining this quartet the SEC locks the Big 10 out of Southern expansion to the west and east. If the ACC takes Connecticut to move to 16. Then what the Big 10 has today is what they end up with. The markets aren't as good as they are in North Carolina and Virginia but the content would be through the roof and that is something that only benefits the SECN, the ESPN regular contract, and CBS.

Since this is a network war as much as a conference cash grab such a move would lock down everything that ESPN could want in order to start a rivalry between the ACC and SEC that would redefine college football and strengthen the entire regions basketball appeal. It's a win win.

Here is what Texas and Oklahoma gain. They get primary access to Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana for recruiting purposes. They get games that their fans can easily reach in the Western Division and reunions with old desired rivals. And they get a huge boost in appealing tickets and access to a tremendous amount of national exposure and more revenue, which they will help to generate. They will be assured of having bowl revenue and playoff money every year, and they essentially keep their old conference in their new division.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

Good luck with that. Why is there such an inherent problem with understanding that doing anything in the short term is going to require immense cooperation across the board. Why cant you get that? You seem to generally fall back upon this mentality of having to one up everyone else, even when it isn't possible.


I think you have changed your mind about wanting this to be a place where all are welcome and instead are trying to turn it into an SEC bastion similar to what the ACC forum is.

(12-10-2014 08:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Good luck with that. Why is there such an inherent problem with understanding that doing anything in the short term is going to require immense cooperation across the board. Why cant you get that? You seem to generally fall back upon this mentality of having to one up everyone else, even when it isn't possible.


I think you have changed your mind about wanting this to be a place where all are welcome and instead are trying to turn it into an SEC bastion similar to what the ACC forum is.

Actually H1 it is quite doable. The timeline is two years. If the notifications of intent to leave are officially submitted to the conference office by August 15th 2016 and those giving notice serve their two year period to avoid the exit fees, there will not be enough schools left to renew the GOR which will be up for renewal at that time. The likelihood of escaping without little brother and damages goes way way up. ESPN has dibs on Texas's contract until June of 2031 so the Longhorns won't be headed anywhere that ESPN doesn't have control. Kansas will be finishing their T3 obligation to ESPN and Oklahoma will be finishing theirs to FOX (both were for 7 years). West Virginia's obligation to IMG is ending about the same time. With ESPN's backing it would be immensely doable. Kansas has expressed a preference for remaining with Texas and Oklahoma. A reunion with Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri would be great for the alumni of Oklahoma and Texas whose fans are really missing those games from their annual schedule. So in two years this could easily happen. In that time ESPN has a chance to assist the PAC in assimilating some Central Time Zone venues. The nice part is the PAC's interest won't affect the placement of the other 4. But their cooperation in taking T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State could go a long way to landing those slots. Throw in a cooperative B.Y.U. or Houston and voila an 18 team three division PAC can emerge placing them in every home on the East coast in prime time. We'll see, but the timing will be everything.

But look on the bright side. Just the threat of such could light a fire under those who could be potentially left behind to urge UT and OU to go ahead and broker the deals. Then a more equitable dissolution might occur. But either way a P4 is possible.

(12-10-2014 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm of the opinion today, that the likelihood of ESPN permitting anything to happen to the ACC as long as Notre Dame's full commitment is a possibility is nil. Therefore the SEC should use its natural advantages to end the realignment era as the dominant conference by doing the following. We should encourage ESPN's profit from the SEC network by getting them to assist the conference in landing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia all at once.

We need a second Texas school and if we land the Longhorns we won't need any other. Oklahoma brings history and content galore and delivers another 3.8 million viewers. Kansas delivers hoops and another state. West Virginia gains us a Northeastern corner for our footprint. By going for and gaining this quartet the SEC locks the Big 10 out of Southern expansion to the west and east. If the ACC takes Connecticut to move to 16. Then what the Big 10 has today is what they end up with. The markets aren't as good as they are in North Carolina and Virginia but the content would be through the roof and that is something that only benefits the SECN, the ESPN regular contract, and CBS.

Since this is a network war as much as a conference cash grab such a move would lock down everything that ESPN could want in order to start a rivalry between the ACC and SEC that would redefine college football and strengthen the entire regions basketball appeal. It's a win win.

Here is what Texas and Oklahoma gain. They get primary access to Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana for recruiting purposes. They get games that their fans can easily reach in the Western Division and reunions with old desired rivals. And they get a huge boost in appealing tickets and access to a tremendous amount of national exposure and more revenue, which they will help to generate. They will be assured of having bowl revenue and playoff money every year, and they essentially keep their old conference in their new division.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

Even though this would make the "ultimate" football conference, I have several concerns with the scenario:

First, I was under the impression that OSU and OU were a couple and that the OK state legislature mandates the situation - so, if you want OU you have to take OSU.

Second, the LHN - how would you incorporate that into the SEC network? I find it hard to believe UT would just give it up.

Third, it's easier for UT and OU to win the Big12 than the SEC, thereby providing an easier path to the Final Four.

Last, I don't think there's enough money to lure UT and OU away. They're also the power brokers of the Big12 - I don't see them giving that up.

(12-11-2014 01:18 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm of the opinion today, that the likelihood of ESPN permitting anything to happen to the ACC as long as Notre Dame's full commitment is a possibility is nil. Therefore the SEC should use its natural advantages to end the realignment era as the dominant conference by doing the following. We should encourage ESPN's profit from the SEC network by getting them to assist the conference in landing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia all at once.

We need a second Texas school and if we land the Longhorns we won't need any other. Oklahoma brings history and content galore and delivers another 3.8 million viewers. Kansas delivers hoops and another state. West Virginia gains us a Northeastern corner for our footprint. By going for and gaining this quartet the SEC locks the Big 10 out of Southern expansion to the west and east. If the ACC takes Connecticut to move to 16. Then what the Big 10 has today is what they end up with. The markets aren't as good as they are in North Carolina and Virginia but the content would be through the roof and that is something that only benefits the SECN, the ESPN regular contract, and CBS.

Since this is a network war as much as a conference cash grab such a move would lock down everything that ESPN could want in order to start a rivalry between the ACC and SEC that would redefine college football and strengthen the entire regions basketball appeal. It's a win win.

Here is what Texas and Oklahoma gain. They get primary access to Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana for recruiting purposes. They get games that their fans can easily reach in the Western Division and reunions with old desired rivals. And they get a huge boost in appealing tickets and access to a tremendous amount of national exposure and more revenue, which they will help to generate. They will be assured of having bowl revenue and playoff money every year, and they essentially keep their old conference in their new division.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

Even though this would make the "ultimate" football conference, I have several concerns with the scenario:

First, I was under the impression that OSU and OU were a couple and that the OK state legislature mandates the situation - so, if you want OU you have to take OSU.

Second, the LHN - how would you incorporate that into the SEC network? I find it hard to believe UT would just give it up.

Third, it's easier for UT and OU to win the Big12 than the SEC, thereby providing an easier path to the Final Four.

Last, I don't think there's enough money to lure UT and OU away. They're also the power brokers of the Big12 - I don't see them giving that up.

In the thread we deal with the OU & OSU situation. Timing prior to the time for renewal of the GOR enables the big schools to escape the little brother issue.

As for your #2 I just gave you an example of how it would be used. The SEC's payout per school for the SECN will be north of 20 million. The LHN pays Texas 15. It would be easily absorbed or assimilated.

#3 A Texas loss or OU loss to Baylor, T.C.U. or West Virginia kills their championship appeal. A loss to Texas A&M or L.S.U. would not. And the Big 12 misses out on playoff revenue when OU and Texas are not the schools. In the SEC they would be assured a piece of the playoff money even in years they didn't make it in.

#4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

(12-11-2014 01:18 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  snip

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

Even though this would make the "ultimate" football conference, I have several concerns with the scenario:

First, I was under the impression that OSU and OU were a couple and that the OK state legislature mandates the situation - so, if you want OU you have to take OSU.

Second, the LHN - how would you incorporate that into the SEC network? I find it hard to believe UT would just give it up.

Third, it's easier for UT and OU to win the Big12 than the SEC, thereby providing an easier path to the Final Four.

Last, I don't think there's enough money to lure UT and OU away. They're also the power brokers of the Big12 - I don't see them giving that up.

1. It's no so much that OU and OKST have to be taken as a pair, just that the Cowboys have to have a safe landing spot. In reality I think it's more about appeasing T. Boone Pickens. I'm not saying I know his mind but if OU goes to the SEC I don't think there would be an acceptable alternative.

2. The LHN network is an ESPN property, thus that a renegotiate at as they see fit if the goal is for Texas to join the SEC. But the Longhorn dreams of somehow or another being unique wouldn't continue.

3. This is a sticky wicket, but if the conferences are reduced down to a P4, the every CCG winner is essentially guaranteed a spot. Thus the real fight becomes internal to the conference.

4. This is the real insurmountable hurdle.

(12-11-2014 01:34 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:18 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(12-10-2014 08:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  snip

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

Even though this would make the "ultimate" football conference, I have several concerns with the scenario:

First, I was under the impression that OSU and OU were a couple and that the OK state legislature mandates the situation - so, if you want OU you have to take OSU.

Second, the LHN - how would you incorporate that into the SEC network? I find it hard to believe UT would just give it up.

Third, it's easier for UT and OU to win the Big12 than the SEC, thereby providing an easier path to the Final Four.

Last, I don't think there's enough money to lure UT and OU away. They're also the power brokers of the Big12 - I don't see them giving that up.

1. It's no so much that OU and OKST have to be taken as a pair, just that the Cowboys have to have a safe landing spot. In reality I think it's more about appeasing T. Boone Pickens. I'm not saying I know his mind but if OU goes to the SEC I don't think there would be an acceptable alternative.

2. The LHN network is an ESPN property, thus that a renegotiate at as they see fit if the goal is for Texas to join the SEC. But the Longhorn dreams of somehow or another being unique wouldn't continue.

3. This is a sticky wicket, but if the conferences are reduced down to a P4, the every CCG winner is essentially guaranteed a spot. Thus the real fight becomes internal to the conference.

4. This is the real insurmountable hurdle.

I really wouldn't want what I'm about to suggest but a move to 20 by the SEC would kill it. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia and whoever Texas wanted as the last school would do it. I just don't think that given the remaining timeline it will be necessary. You could get it done with just Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas. The ACC would likely take the Eers.

(12-11-2014 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I really wouldn't want what I'm about to suggest but a move to 20 by the SEC would kill it. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia and whoever Texas wanted as the last school would do it. I just don't think that given the remaining timeline it will be necessary. You could get it done with just Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas. The ACC would likely take the Eers.

At 20 you are talking about two different leagues that decide to place each others champ into a post season game. That being said, going to 20 would allow the Texahoma 4 to shed its Big 8 baggage.

(12-11-2014 03:38 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I really wouldn't want what I'm about to suggest but a move to 20 by the SEC would kill it. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia and whoever Texas wanted as the last school would do it. I just don't think that given the remaining timeline it will be necessary. You could get it done with just Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas. The ACC would likely take the Eers.

At 20 you are talking about two different leagues that decide to place each others champ into a post season game. That being said, going to 20 would allow the Texahoma 4 to shed its Big 8 baggage.

At 20 you have 4 divisions and rotate yearly which division you play to make up your 10 conference games. At 20 you are really looking at a P3 straight in the eyeballs. Unless the SEC went to 20 with the Big 12 which would alter all other conferences chances of doing the same successfully. That is why I think 18 is much more likely to answer market needs for the networks.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

at 18 it becomes

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

At 20 with little brother tag along's the SEC doesn't gain nearly what we need to out of a 4 team move. But we would own Texas and Oklahoma lock stock and barrel and the content boost would still be there. I would rather have Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. That's almost 5 million more viewers and a slither of the D.C. market with 3 six team divisions.

But the game here is finding the balance point. Who and how many do we need to get Texas to bite with Oklahoma, and still make it more profitable for everyone.

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

(12-11-2014 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:38 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I really wouldn't want what I'm about to suggest but a move to 20 by the SEC would kill it. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia and whoever Texas wanted as the last school would do it. I just don't think that given the remaining timeline it will be necessary. You could get it done with just Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas. The ACC would likely take the Eers.

At 20 you are talking about two different leagues that decide to place each others champ into a post season game. That being said, going to 20 would allow the Texahoma 4 to shed its Big 8 baggage.

At 20 you have 4 divisions and rotate yearly which division you play to make up your 10 conference games. At 20 you are really looking at a P3 straight in the eyeballs. Unless the SEC went to 20 with the Big 12 which would alter all other conferences chances of doing the same successfully. That is why I think 18 is much more likely to answer market needs for the networks.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

at 18 it becomes

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

At 20 with little brother tag along's the SEC doesn't gain nearly what we need to out of a 4 team move. But we would own Texas and Oklahoma lock stock and barrel and the content boost would still be there. I would rather have Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. That's almost 5 million more viewers and a slither of the D.C. market with 3 six team divisions.

But the game here is finding the balance point. Who and how many do we need to get Texas to bite with Oklahoma, and still make it more profitable for everyone.

I think Kansas and A&M would be flipped in the 20 team scenario. There might be enough bad blood that KU/MU and UT/A&M would not want to share divisions. Besides you could always designate them permanent rivals to play out of division each year or something if that was acceptable.

The 20 team scenario with all six schools from the B12 would be much more likely to land Texas for the SEC (or any other conference). That would be a six school block that Texas would be able to influence. If they got their relationships rebuilt with MU, A&M,and Arkansas that is 9 schools they could influence and LSU is unhappy about a few things the SEC has done that would be 10. That is a lot of potential allies in a 20 schools SEC. If they wanted to increase academic and recruiting standards, like they did when the B12 formed, over the previous Big 8 standards, they would be able to count on more schools like Florida and Vanderbilt at least. A block of six schools is a good start to a power base within the SEC for Texas/OU. Six schools is enough to block anything requiring a 75% vote. That is a lot of potential power for Texas to get what it wants. Of course, that is also a reason for the SEC to be leery of Texas and adding too many B12 schools all at once.

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

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.

(12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.

The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.

(12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.

The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.

I guess that's why they have been in serious talks with the SEC 3 times in the past 22 years. Their public statements about the Big 10 amount to them trying to pressure us into taking Oklahoma State with them. The Sooners have 1 team they would like to reunite with in the Big 10.....Nebraska. But they also see what has happened to Nebraska's brand. You can say what you will but Nebraska is dead last by a bit in academics in the Big 10. Nebraska is the farthest Southwest corner of Delaney's Empire and a geographical outlier (which they would be admittedly in any conference) but cut off from traditional recruiting grounds. Oklahoma knows that this is their future in the Big 10. And furthermore there are no guarantees the Big 10 presidents would vote them in since the Sooners aren't even sniffing AAU status and their academic scores are at the mean of those from the SEC and significantly behind those of Nebraska. The Big 10 "might" take the Sooners to get Texas. But alone they are the "cheese" to the farmers in the dale of the Big 10.

Xlance is right, without Texas and with O.S.U. the Sooners have one haven that would take them and then in the right circumstances, the SEC. Should the SEC take Oklahoma then along with Texas A&M the Sooners eliminate the need to take a second Texas school. That leaves Kansas and West Virginia open for new markets for the SEC. If both Oklahoma and O.S.U. move together elsewhere (and that ain't likely) only then would the SEC "need" a second Texas school.

The only way the SEC says yes to the pair of Oklahoma schools is if two other markets, or one other national brand and one other market are in the deal to make it worth our while. Texas, the two Oklahoma's and Kansas would be doable. Texas, the two Oklahoma's and West Virginia would be doable. Kansas, the two Oklahoma's and West Virginia is only a good "possibility".

I think the SEC would like to be at 16, but 18 is doable with the right mix. Plus that still leaves two spaces should the markets of North Carolina and Virginia ever open up, say in 20 or 30 years when O.D.U. and E.C.U. have met metrics.

(12-12-2014 12:31 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:38 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I really wouldn't want what I'm about to suggest but a move to 20 by the SEC would kill it. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia and whoever Texas wanted as the last school would do it. I just don't think that given the remaining timeline it will be necessary. You could get it done with just Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas. The ACC would likely take the Eers.

At 20 you are talking about two different leagues that decide to place each others champ into a post season game. That being said, going to 20 would allow the Texahoma 4 to shed its Big 8 baggage.

At 20 you have 4 divisions and rotate yearly which division you play to make up your 10 conference games. At 20 you are really looking at a P3 straight in the eyeballs. Unless the SEC went to 20 with the Big 12 which would alter all other conferences chances of doing the same successfully. That is why I think 18 is much more likely to answer market needs for the networks.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

at 18 it becomes

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

At 20 with little brother tag along's the SEC doesn't gain nearly what we need to out of a 4 team move. But we would own Texas and Oklahoma lock stock and barrel and the content boost would still be there. I would rather have Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. That's almost 5 million more viewers and a slither of the D.C. market with 3 six team divisions.

But the game here is finding the balance point. Who and how many do we need to get Texas to bite with Oklahoma, and still make it more profitable for everyone.

I think Kansas and A&M would be flipped in the 20 team scenario. There might be enough bad blood that KU/MU and UT/A&M would not want to share divisions. Besides you could always designate them permanent rivals to play out of division each year or something if that was acceptable.

The 20 team scenario with all six schools from the B12 would be much more likely to land Texas for the SEC (or any other conference). That would be a six school block that Texas would be able to influence. If they got their relationships rebuilt with MU, A&M,and Arkansas that is 9 schools they could influence and LSU is unhappy about a few things the SEC has done that would be 10. That is a lot of potential allies in a 20 schools SEC. If they wanted to increase academic and recruiting standards, like they did when the B12 formed, over the previous Big 8 standards, they would be able to count on more schools like Florida and Vanderbilt at least. A block of six schools is a good start to a power base within the SEC for Texas/OU. Six schools is enough to block anything requiring a 75% vote. That is a lot of potential power for Texas to get what it wants. Of course, that is also a reason for the SEC to be leery of Texas and adding too many B12 schools all at once.

I see a problem with Texas and the Aggies, but I do not see a real problem with Kansas and Missouri. There were no conference management issues between the two. Just an awesome rivalry.

(12-12-2014 12:31 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:38 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I really wouldn't want what I'm about to suggest but a move to 20 by the SEC would kill it. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia and whoever Texas wanted as the last school would do it. I just don't think that given the remaining timeline it will be necessary. You could get it done with just Texas, OU, OSU and Kansas. The ACC would likely take the Eers.

At 20 you are talking about two different leagues that decide to place each others champ into a post season game. That being said, going to 20 would allow the Texahoma 4 to shed its Big 8 baggage.

At 20 you have 4 divisions and rotate yearly which division you play to make up your 10 conference games. At 20 you are really looking at a P3 straight in the eyeballs. Unless the SEC went to 20 with the Big 12 which would alter all other conferences chances of doing the same successfully. That is why I think 18 is much more likely to answer market needs for the networks.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia

at 18 it becomes

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

At 20 with little brother tag along's the SEC doesn't gain nearly what we need to out of a 4 team move. But we would own Texas and Oklahoma lock stock and barrel and the content boost would still be there. I would rather have Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia. That's almost 5 million more viewers and a slither of the D.C. market with 3 six team divisions.

But the game here is finding the balance point. Who and how many do we need to get Texas to bite with Oklahoma, and still make it more profitable for everyone.

I think Kansas and A&M would be flipped in the 20 team scenario. There might be enough bad blood that KU/MU and UT/A&M would not want to share divisions. Besides you could always designate them permanent rivals to play out of division each year or something if that was acceptable.

The 20 team scenario with all six schools from the B12 would be much more likely to land Texas for the SEC (or any other conference). That would be a six school block that Texas would be able to influence. If they got their relationships rebuilt with MU, A&M,and Arkansas that is 9 schools they could influence and LSU is unhappy about a few things the SEC has done that would be 10. That is a lot of potential allies in a 20 schools SEC. If they wanted to increase academic and recruiting standards, like they did when the B12 formed, over the previous Big 8 standards, they would be able to count on more schools like Florida and Vanderbilt at least. A block of six schools is a good start to a power base within the SEC for Texas/OU. Six schools is enough to block anything requiring a 75% vote. That is a lot of potential power for Texas to get what it wants. Of course, that is also a reason for the SEC to be leery of Texas and adding too many B12 schools all at once.

You know I've given some thought to the negatives of a voting block and here is what I finally decided would likely happen. Texas Tech if they came in would vote with them. But in the SEC I think the others would eventually feel the freedom that the other schools do and would simply begin to vote their own issues. And that my friend is a healthy state of affairs. I would expect that Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt and Tennessee and Florida might share some separate agendas from say L.S.U., Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and Texas A&M. Texas might pair with Oklahoma, but Oklahoma State would be more independent I would think. If West Virginia got in they wouldn't feel the need with more peers closer by to vote with Texas. Texas would indeed just find itself to be one of the crowd. Everybody says this is an Alabama dominated conference but in voting things don't always go their way and that's why I love the SEC. Like a family we have squabbles and an occasional hissy fit. But when it comes to the rest of the world we pull together. I guarantee you that there are more people rooting for A&M and Mizzou when they play out of conference than just their fans. And SEC fans will tune in to see what they do against the outsiders. Shoot every one got excited for Vandy there for a couple of years and when they won the baseball national championship everyone, not just in Nashville, was pulling for them and proud of them. It's just different being in this conference.

I say all of that to point out that if we took 6 members of the Big 12 what would happen is that 4 or maybe 5 of them would smile at Texas and nod like they always have, but once they get the feel for things they would vote their heart and be damn glad they were in the SEC.

(12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.

The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.

I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.

(12-14-2014 02:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.

The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.

I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.

If Texas moved to the Big 10 their fans would never forgive them, at least the Southern ones wouldn't. It would be essentially like the last cattle drive. The only reasons Longhorns ever went North was to be slaughtered in Chicago. They could go ahead and hand the keys to Texas over to the lads from College Station because the State would be changing allegiances in total. And by the way, who the hell ever wanted to help Nebraska? It sure wasn't Texas.

(12-14-2014 02:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-12-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

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

(12-11-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  #4 The Power broker issue is not as much a problem for Oklahoma as Texas. If the Sooners get a chance to leave they will likely take it. Texas will be left with nobody that their alums want to see them play. That's why they would leave. Remember Oklahoma gets around 7 million a year for T3, Texas gets 15. The SECN will pay out over 20. The Big 10 network over 25. Oklahoma has a lot of reason to leave. The question is do they want to be an outlier in the Big 10, or part of their old rivals in the SEC West? We'll see.

How soon is this $20M to $25M for the B1GN and SECN share supposed to happen? That is like 3 times more than what the B1GN last paid out (I think it was around $8M). I have not seen any realistic estimates that these networks would pay out that much anytime in the near future. Are there any links with numbers and how they were figured (nothing from Clay Travis please)? This seems extremely unlikely. However, if it is true the SEC and B1G will be able to take any team they want from the B12 and ACC, and perhaps the PAC depending on the PACN payout, because that is as much or more than those conferences are paying out as a conference for their national deals or there will be mergers between the weaker conferences to create networks and line-ups to get similar payouts.

I'm sure that Oklahoma would like to leave, even without Texas. But where can they go?
We have already seen that the PAC won't take them without Texas, and I know that the ACC won't take them even with Texas. That leaves the B1G or the SEC. Between those two, the Sooners had better be making goo-goo eyes to the southeast.

The Sooners would rather go to the Big Ten. Even Missouri wanted The Big Ten over the SEC.

I am not so sure about your last statement H1. I doubt that Missouri even thought the SEC would give them a second look. I sure didn't see it coming. I realize the academic potential of joining the B1G though. I think our on field performance would have suffered much more as a member of the B1G,than as a Big XII school... like ten times worse than Nebraska is experiencing now. Could not have recruited the South, would probably lose the Texas pipeline, and wouldn't have been able to compete for the Northern kids against the established schools. The same will happen to Oklahoma if they make a move to the B1G. OU will fare much better in the SEC. Of course everything changes if the Longhorns make a move to the B1G. Would probably even help Nebraska. JMHO.

I am not saying everyone connected to Missouri would rather have been in the Big Ten back then but it was pretty clear that your leadership wanted it pretty badly. Who do you think got your Governor all fired up about it?

I disagree about Oklahoma. Norman is two and a half hours drive time from DFW. It is a false argument that you are buying into. They will be fine wherever they go. Nebraska's recruiting was already going down hill before they ever left the Big 12 and that is why any attempt to claim that Oklahoma would lose all it's recruiting is just silly and is simply false logic. Any kind of statement like that which is based upon a false premise is therefore false as well.

Nebraska's distance from Texas is an issue for them in terms of recruiting Texas. Nebraska at it's prime was recruiting the entire country, not just Texas. Oklahoma is a much different situation. I realize you guys don't like the Big Ten and that doesn't bother me one bit but do try to keep to the facts in these debates with me. The Oklahoma situation is far from being the same as the Nebraska situation was.