(03-05-2015 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 01:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UT will never be voted into the SEC.

No other TX school will ever be voted into the SEC.

No more than 1 OK school MIGHT be voted into the SEC.

HTH, Next topic!

SEC future expansion:
15. Oklahoma (for football)
16. Kansas (for basketball)

DONE.
(The ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 fight over the Big XII scraps)

You are saying Texas is scraps?

(03-05-2015 04:41 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Think about this:

If UT joins, OU would come too. Bama and Auburn would get shifted East, Mizzou shifted West. The SEC West would look like this:

OU
TX A&M
UT@Austin
Mizzou
LSU
Arky
MSU
OM

Now who would vote for this?! Obviously we wouldn't but Mizzou isn't voting to be in a division with OU and UT. Neither is LSU. The MS schools don't want to be trading their long time games with the AL schools for that division. Only Arky might be happy with that division.

And that's just the West. While Auburn would be thrilled, Florida, UGA, SC and UTN would definitely not be voting for UA and AU as annual division games.

That's a lot of no votes....not that it would ever actually get to a real vote. That's not how the SEC works.

I don't think the East would mind this, and it solves several scheduling issues. LSU is always complaining about their "rivalry" game with Florida. With Alabama and Auburn in the East, TN-Alabama, Georgia-Auburn are already protected and you can move to a 7-2 format if you want with no extra-division rivalries. (My biased opinion as a TN fan, I know... but Alabama in the East is the only way I'm okay with no eastern expansion candidates like Virginia Tech).

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

(03-05-2015 09:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

If it was most likely to be the PAC then it would have already been the PAC. Come on Brista, we Big Ten folk like to see our fellows represent a higher level of understanding.

(03-05-2015 10:03 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I do not purport this to be anything other than speculation.

The following thoughts occurred to me this morning. Is there another motivation for the LHN being added to almost every cable/satellite provider during the same time period the SEC Network rapidly acquired impressive carriage rights contracts across the country instead of the obvious desire to get nationwide on as many carriers as possible?

The LHN's multi-year struggle to acquire carriage contracts somewhat quickly came to an end in 2014 as the LHN apparently scored media contracts one after another. Such success simply could have resulted after the time necessary to negotiate such deals. The timing likely was enhanced by Disney bundling the LHN with the SECN and other Mouse properties during such carriage negotiations.

But was there another motivation for the LHN entering into such contracts? The reason for such speculation is that there were reports during such time that the LHN entered into media contracts where it received zero carriage fees in states outside the Big 12 footprint. (I'll let other posters take the time to find them as I have to get to work, but I do remember such article(s) stating such after the 2014 contracts were announced.

Now entering such agreements for little to no money could have been a smart decision on the part of the LHN. Once you get on the channel list of a provider the LHN would be able to establish its viewership and negotiate higher fees when it is time to negotiate after the first contract ends. I definitely can see that, but the now obvious result is that ESPN now has another network with nationwide distribution across all major providers. The hard work has been done. The next question is how much value could this network provide? What is its greatest potential?

I do not assert the it was ever the original plan for ESPN to have the LHN be anything other than a Texas network and that ESPN has tried to get national media provider contracts that maximize the value of the LHN, if not short term, then long term. But look what ESPN now has; a national sports network that no one could really deny would generate much more money when its new media contracts are renegotiated at the end of their terms if such network had more sports content.

When such contracts end, which I presume would be in only a few short years, could we see a change in content that broadens out beyond Texas sports? Consider the profit a renegotiated LHN that contains only Texas content. Now consider the profit of something much more ambitious, a SEC Network West.

Can anyone really deny ESPN would make much more money with an SEC Network West comprised of the media content of the current SEC West schools, minus Bama and Auburn, plus Mizzou from the East and new members UT and OU? The current SECN would become the SEC Network East, and such network not having to negotiate getting a channel on each provider, just how much more money the network would be paid. Tremendous profits. Easy tremendous profits.

What about Texas? Why would they do this?

First, the writing could be on the wall that there will not be much more money coming in the next contract negotiations outside of the Big 12 footprint, and maybe inside of it, for the LHN. The providers have made clear they do not want to encourage more networks for individual schools in a world where they believe they are already paying too much for sports content networks. I believe a line was drawn where the networks said to ESPN that they would broadcast the LHN but we are not going to pay any considerable sum to do so.

Second, I do not believe Texas is as happy to be in Big 12 as many believe. Such does not come from just reading Texas sports message boards, though if one does so a certain noticeable angst is palpable.

Third, more money. More money is always a plus, despite UT being the richest program in the country, for now. I say for now because the differences in total revenue between UT and other powerful brands such as Ohio State, Alabama and others will likely be narrowed, and maybe past, in the age of the BTN and the SECN as such continue to grow over the years.

Fourth, and this is the strongest reason, exposure. It is my opinion UT has been horrified by the viewership numbers of UT football games compared to the average quality SEC matchup, and especially the numbers TAMU get even when they were having a somewhat average/below average year. Exposure, not more money, is what is most important to Texas. That was the primary reason for them creating their own network. Having millions of fewer viewers cannot be acceptable to the Longhorns. It is against everything they are about and contrary to good business sense.

Fifth, UT gets to enter the SEC with pride. While TAMU could always say, "UT followed us into the SEC", Texas could respond be saying, "Yes, but we brought a network with us".

Finally, as to both UT, OU and ESPN, the shear enormous potential of such a network could make such a network conversion happen, maybe inevitable. All reason against it pales in comparison. If OU's grant of rights to Fox prevents them from going at this time, Kansas stands there for the taking.

Lurker Above

Wouldn't a more likely scenario is to get ready to convert it to a B12Net?

(03-05-2015 09:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

Smoke this over and then tell me why they would go West? It is about money, and secondly geography. I disagree with Lurker only in the finest of details:

Arkansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas

L.S.U.
Mississippi
Miss. State
Texas A&M

Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina

Why?:
blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

And to answer the traditional dismissals he accounts for the 50% contracted split between ESPN and the SEC following the first two years that cover start up costs, and the reporter reduces the actual estimates by another entity.

Texas will not look west again

No one can deny JR, that is a Great line up. It is balanced, it is strong and it has top notch local rivalries that are relevant.

There is just that one problem, Texas following in the footsteps of Texas A&M.

I think it would be pretty crazy for the SEC to jump to 16 with texas and OU, too much football power. Texas and KU for 16 might work but its probably too west. The best combo for the the sec to get to 16 would be UVA and UNC, not realistic. Barring that combo, it would be UNC and Duke. I could see that happen if the big 10 landed UVA. Also, don't think 16 should be viewed as a cap for any league when pursuing texas and unc.

(03-05-2015 10:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No one can deny JR, that is a Great line up. It is balanced, it is strong and it has top notch local rivalries that are relevant.

There is just that one problem, Texas following in the footsteps of Texas A&M.

Every beef cow is auctioned for a price. Lurker did a great job of pointing out the perks. Two more content adds and CBS ponies up again in addition to ESPN. Sorry 10th but there is no voting block against cash, not even by your administration. As long as A&M has its own path to the playoffs they have their destiny in their own hands. Being in a division with L.S.U. and the two Mississippi schools is that pathway.
I'm not saying this happens, but I am saying the temptation will be significant. Much more significant than many have postulated.

(03-05-2015 10:02 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think it would be pretty crazy for the SEC to jump to 16 with texas and OU, too much football power. Texas and KU for 16 might work but its probably too west. The best combo for the the sec to get to 16 would be UVA and UNC, not realistic. Barring that combo, it would be UNC and Duke. I could see that happen if the big 10 landed UVA. Also, don't think 16 should be viewed as a cap for any league when pursuing texas and unc.

Except:
1. ESPN won't let anything happen to the ACC as long as they have a shot at N.D..
2. All contracts beyond expansion will be increased only by content. The SEC might as well get a leg up on that now.
3. It gives Texas its place in the middle of the schools that their fans care the most about playing. That's something no other conference can give them. The PAC could come close with an expansion to 18 or more, but they would still be way out West and likely paid less (because neither network owns a stake in them).

(03-05-2015 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

Why?:
blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

And to answer the traditional dismissals he accounts for the 50% contracted split between ESPN and the SEC following the first two years that cover start up costs, and the reporter reduces the actual estimates by another entity.

I was just about to link that.

Texas to Pac-12 is simply too great a burden without several schools going and I have my doubts that four Central time zone schools cuts the mustard.

The thing about LHN is that while the message board trope is often bad ol Texas starting a network, Texas sold two things to ESPN. The rights to a limited slate of games and other was the right to use UT's logos and trademarks, equity isn't in play unless targets are met. That is blessing/curse for UT.

Texas is viable to be independent in football but they a lack a viable home for sports other than football (though my offer on behalf of the Sun Belt stands).

I don't see a fix for the Pac-12 without coming into the Central time zone and if you aren't adding Texas football and Kansas hoops I don't see the money being there.

LHN complicates most anything Texas might want to do.

Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC, the LHN deal prohibits Texas from participating in their conference networks unless ESPN agrees and in the case of Pac-12 and Big 10 there appears to be no reason for ESPN to consent unless ESPN is getting equity in their networks. In the case of the SEC, ESPN agreeing seems easy enough, but getting the SEC on board if it remains independently branded seems a long shot. ESPN is on the hook until July 1, 2031 and doesn't have a great deal of incentive to give up that branding unless its getting a stake in something it doesn't have like P12 or B1G networks.

The deal is more problematic than the GOR which expires June 30, 2025. Under GOR arguably nothing happens if TV continues to pay at the current rate and would at most let Fox grab two or three games if Texas joined SEC or ACC.

An interesting possible wrinkle. If Fox grabs the B1G rights up for bid, ESPN suddenly has incentive to come to the table if Texas wants to join the Big 10. The LHN deal plus their claim to a couple top tier games under the GOR gives ESPN an incentive to see Texas join the Big 10 to get a piece of the Big 10 and use the LHN deal to trade for more B1G content.

With the ACC complaining about wanting their own network, agreeing to take Texas on Notre Dame terms in return for speeding it up could have some merit but the ACC seems to have little wiggle room unless they want to go really big.

The interesting part of the LHN deal is that if Texas goes independent ESPN has first negotiation rights AND has right to match any offer Texas receives.

If ESPN wins the next B1G deal it may well make sense for ESPN to demolish the Big XII. Find a home for five schools other than Texas, no conference, no GOR, Fox loses the programming. Then you either get Texas into the conference of their choosing or help Texas form a new league out of the Big XII wreckage that Texas doesn't participate in for football (or does an ND and plays four games) and they get 100% of Texas football.

(03-05-2015 11:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

Why?:
blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

And to answer the traditional dismissals he accounts for the 50% contracted split between ESPN and the SEC following the first two years that cover start up costs, and the reporter reduces the actual estimates by another entity.

I was just about to link that.

Texas to Pac-12 is simply too great a burden without several schools going and I have my doubts that four Central time zone schools cuts the mustard.

The thing about LHN is that while the message board trope is often bad ol Texas starting a network, Texas sold two things to ESPN. The rights to a limited slate of games and other was the right to use UT's logos and trademarks, equity isn't in play unless targets are met. That is blessing/curse for UT.

Texas is viable to be independent in football but they a lack a viable home for sports other than football (though my offer on behalf of the Sun Belt stands).

I don't see a fix for the Pac-12 without coming into the Central time zone and if you aren't adding Texas football and Kansas hoops I don't see the money being there.

LHN complicates most anything Texas might want to do.

Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC, the LHN deal prohibits Texas from participating in their conference networks unless ESPN agrees and in the case of Pac-12 and Big 10 there appears to be no reason for ESPN to consent unless ESPN is getting equity in their networks. In the case of the SEC, ESPN agreeing seems easy enough, but getting the SEC on board if it remains independently branded seems a long shot. ESPN is on the hook until July 1, 2031 and doesn't have a great deal of incentive to give up that branding unless its getting a stake in something it doesn't have like P12 or B1G networks.

The deal is more problematic than the GOR which expires June 30, 2025. Under GOR arguably nothing happens if TV continues to pay at the current rate and would at most let Fox grab two or three games if Texas joined SEC or ACC.

An interesting possible wrinkle. If Fox grabs the B1G rights up for bid, ESPN suddenly has incentive to come to the table if Texas wants to join the Big 10. The LHN deal plus their claim to a couple top tier games under the GOR gives ESPN an incentive to see Texas join the Big 10 to get a piece of the Big 10 and use the LHN deal to trade for more B1G content.

With the ACC complaining about wanting their own network, agreeing to take Texas on Notre Dame terms in return for speeding it up could have some merit but the ACC seems to have little wiggle room unless they want to go really big.

The interesting part of the LHN deal is that if Texas goes independent ESPN has first negotiation rights AND has right to match any offer Texas receives.

If ESPN wins the next B1G deal it may well make sense for ESPN to demolish the Big XII. Find a home for five schools other than Texas, no conference, no GOR, Fox loses the programming. Then you either get Texas into the conference of their choosing or help Texas form a new league out of the Big XII wreckage that Texas doesn't participate in for football (or does an ND and plays four games) and they get 100% of Texas football.

Except you miss the obvious. The Big 10 would be more interested in other ESPN property, not in the Big 12. If ESPN wanted to build a conference around Texas then leverage markets to the Big 10 and enhance the value of the SECN they could accomplish it all with the dissolution of another conference. With a few of the right travel companions they might even be able to hang onto a piece of the Irish through it all. And face it Judge, it would be easier to accomplish with the brokerage of property that was essentially 100% yours with which to bargain. Then content football schools duplicated within the SEC would set up the foil that they want to hype the games further. Surround Texas and Oklahoma with them and voila an instant rival for the SEC. The two are set up already in the Sugar Bowl and what had been great games between SEC schools and their in state rivals suddenly accomplish the same ends just for another conference.

Texas isn't interested in the Big 10. They have a fan base to satisfy and games in West Lafayette and Minnesota aren't going to get it done. For that matter neither are games in Eugene and Palo Alto and those are much more attractive digs.

BTW the new value of the SECN as estimated by the San Jose Mercury News is almost exactly equivalent to the current payouts to the LHN. Morphing one into the other would actually be quite simple.

But not to worry the ACC contingent, the Big 10 get simply won't happen. There isn't enough marketable product in the Big 10 to be worth breaking up the best possible market when you can tie it to the popularity of the SEC by keeping those instate rivals and adding brands to it. Stop and think about it a bit. If they land Texas, Kansas and West Virginia in the SEC or ACC they have acquired 3/4's of the marketable product of the Big 12. Throw in an Oklahoma that won't want to leave without at least Kansas and you have it all, and probably for the price of 6 schools tops, and maybe just that 4. Texas Tech and T.C.U. are still good for a nice piece of the Texas market and even Oklahoma State helps deliver DFW. With that coup ESPN will own the following: Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech, Kansas, Syracuse, and West Virginia. That will be close to 3/4's of the top 20 revenue producers, and virtually the same number of attendance leaders. And I didn't even include part interest in the Irish. The Big 10 is great, but really only has 6 draws and only 4 of those are substantial: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and a fading Nebraska with a strong Michigan State and Wisconsin finishing out the lineup. The PAC has what? Oregon, U.S.C. (when they are good), occasionally U.C.L.A. and Washington or an Arizona school and unless they are undefeated the West coast yawns.

No sir the Mouse has the most they will ever have with the fewest number of schools. If they acquire 3 of those 4 Big 12 targets more completely they win big time and outright. You don't use the top product in the country to leverage 6 schools in awkward content. Especially when you have ready to go old rivalries right next door.

Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

(03-05-2015 11:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The interesting part of the LHN deal is that if Texas goes independent ESPN has first negotiation rights AND has right to match any offer Texas receives.

If ESPN wins the next B1G deal it may well make sense for ESPN to demolish the Big XII. Find a home for five schools other than Texas, no conference, no GOR, Fox loses the programming. Then you either get Texas into the conference of their choosing or help Texas form a new league out of the Big XII wreckage that Texas doesn't participate in for football (or does an ND and plays four games) and they get 100% of Texas football.

I don't see it. ESPN doesn't care that much about taking Fox's Big 12 rights away. Those rights are limited to football and mostly on FS1 which in all likelihood will never be a real threat to ESPN. It's not like they would be depriving Fox of NFL rights, which is about the "reward" you'd have to get to make it worth it to have ESPN's fingerprints all over the destruction of the Big 12.

Looking at the indy possibility, that's a good long-term play for ESPN. IMO, UT as a football indy would be more valuable than ND as a football indy, and if that ever comes to pass it falls right into ESPN's lap.

(03-05-2015 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

Smoke this over and then tell me why they would go West? It is about money, and secondly geography. I disagree with Lurker only in the finest of details:

Arkansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas

L.S.U.
Mississippi
Miss. State
Texas A&M

Alabama
Auburn
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina

Why?:
blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

And to answer the traditional dismissals he accounts for the 50% contracted split between ESPN and the SEC following the first two years that cover start up costs, and the reporter reduces the actual estimates by another entity.

JR,
Your pods are what I meant to type earlier. TAMU should be with LSU and Arky with OU and UT. We are in complete agreement if the SEC takes in OU and UT.

(03-05-2015 11:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except you miss the obvious. The Big 10 would be more interested in other ESPN property, not in the Big 12. If ESPN wanted to build a conference around Texas then leverage markets to the Big 10 and enhance the value of the SECN they could accomplish it all with the dissolution of another conference. With a few of the right travel companions they might even be able to hang onto a piece of the Irish through it all. And face it Judge, it would be easier to accomplish with the brokerage of property that was essentially 100% yours with which to bargain. Then content football schools duplicated within the SEC would set up the foil that they want to hype the games further. Surround Texas and Oklahoma with them and voila an instant rival for the SEC. The two are set up already in the Sugar Bowl and what had been great games between SEC schools and their in state rivals suddenly accomplish the same ends just for another conference.

Texas isn't interested in the Big 10. They have a fan base to satisfy and games in West Lafayette and Minnesota aren't going to get it done. For that matter neither are games in Eugene and Palo Alto and those are much more attractive digs.

BTW the new value of the SECN as estimated by the San Jose Mercury News is almost exactly equivalent to the current payouts to the LHN. Morphing one into the other would actually be quite simple.

But not to worry the ACC contingent, the Big 10 get simply won't happen. There isn't enough marketable product in the Big 10 to be worth breaking up the best possible market when you can tie it to the popularity of the SEC by keeping those instate rivals and adding brands to it. Stop and think about it a bit. If they land Texas, Kansas and West Virginia in the SEC or ACC they have acquired 3/4's of the marketable product of the Big 12. Throw in an Oklahoma that won't want to leave without at least Kansas and you have it all, and probably for the price of 6 schools tops, and maybe just that 4. Texas Tech and T.C.U. are still good for a nice piece of the Texas market and even Oklahoma State helps deliver DFW. With that coup ESPN will own the following: Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia Tech, Kansas, Syracuse, and West Virginia. That will be close to 3/4's of the top 20 revenue producers, and virtually the same number of attendance leaders. And I didn't even include part interest in the Irish. The Big 10 is great, but really only has 6 draws and only 4 of those are substantial: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and a fading Nebraska with a strong Michigan State and Wisconsin finishing out the lineup. The PAC has what? Oregon, U.S.C. (when they are good), occasionally U.C.L.A. and Washington or an Arizona school and unless they are undefeated the West coast yawns.

No sir the Mouse has the most they will ever have with the fewest number of schools. If they acquire 3 of those 4 Big 12 targets more completely they win big time and outright. You don't use the top product in the country to leverage 6 schools in awkward content. Especially when you have ready to go old rivalries right next door.

Skimming the contract, it appears it does not have to be branded LHN if UT consents to the change but ESPN is obligated to 200 UT sports events.

The Mouse owns super rights in UT and Kansas, those facts I believe are significant.

The SEC obstacle I see as two-fold. One league objection to the branding and Texas snobbery about the academic standing of the league.

Viewing the world from the perspective of ESPN there is one college property of imminent concern. The Big 10. Fox owns majority stake of BTN and if Fox gets the rest of the package ESPN is shut out of a lot of homes that love college football and follow Big 10 schools.

Terminating the Big XII by shuttling teams to the SEC and ACC is the easiest for ESPN because it is all done in-house, but Big XII offers a bundle of carrots to entice the Big Ten to turn over the TV rights for many years.

Pride objections to the contrary, it is possible that ESPN in deal making with any league might offer to make whole any conference taking Texas by whole by offering enhanced payments for agreeing to permit to remain independent or if the money is good enough to entice Texas to turn its stream of payments and potential equity to the league while the branding remains as is.

(03-05-2015 10:02 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think it would be pretty crazy for the SEC to jump to 16 with texas and OU, too much football power. Texas and KU for 16 might work but its probably too west. The best combo for the the sec to get to 16 would be UVA and UNC, not realistic. Barring that combo, it would be UNC and Duke. I could see that happen if the big 10 landed UVA. Also, don't think 16 should be viewed as a cap for any league when pursuing texas and unc.

I absolutely agree. If the SEC could get UT, OU, UNC and VT the SEC would go up to 24 to get there.

(03-06-2015 12:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The interesting part of the LHN deal is that if Texas goes independent ESPN has first negotiation rights AND has right to match any offer Texas receives.

If ESPN wins the next B1G deal it may well make sense for ESPN to demolish the Big XII. Find a home for five schools other than Texas, no conference, no GOR, Fox loses the programming. Then you either get Texas into the conference of their choosing or help Texas form a new league out of the Big XII wreckage that Texas doesn't participate in for football (or does an ND and plays four games) and they get 100% of Texas football.

I don't see it. ESPN doesn't care that much about taking Fox's Big 12 rights away. Those rights are limited to football and mostly on FS1 which in all likelihood will never be a real threat to ESPN. It's not like they would be depriving Fox of NFL rights, which is about the "reward" you'd have to get to make it worth it to have ESPN's fingerprints all over the destruction of the Big 12.

Looking at the indy possibility, that's a good long-term play for ESPN. IMO, UT as a football indy would be more valuable than ND as a football indy, and if that ever comes to pass it falls right into ESPN's lap.

Finally, someone understands.

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

H1, pointing out the obvious is not attacking the Big 10. Travel for fan bases will be the second leading factor in any realignment, outside of money. The only ones willing to place their fans at a travel disadvantage are schools that fear being left out altogether. That's not Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas. Stating that the Big 10 has 6 content schools is also not an attack on the Big 10. Every time anybody engages your arguments with a counter position you claim foul and accuse them of hating the Big 10. You should be better than to resort to such a tactic.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.
I don't know how long it takes to absorb that fact for posters on this board, but the ACC with Louisville took the best available revenue producer and a product that enhanced their bottom line. Mighty Texas, the so called academic snob, pushed for West Virginia because they add the most to the bottom line (and because the networks favored the move). The wonderful California schools took Utah (nothing against the Utes but they aren't top 25 nationally in academics) and everyone tends to forget they took Arizona State not too many years ago. The Big 10 ignored the fact that Nebraska was losing AAU status to land a brand that enhanced their content value. So spare me the academic garbage please. State funds are exhausted in many states, Federal money is tightening, the cost has exceeded demand, and these schools are looking for 1 thing, money! If that can be acquired without rankling or inconveniencing the fan base then wonderful.

As to Lurker's suggestion that the SEC may go up to 24 to get the right schools, I think that might be possible but what they would really like to stop with would be 20. If they went after Texas and Kansas for instance with both being AAU then I believe adding Kansas is really an enticement for possible expansion down the road when income disparities may fuel more movement in 12 years. The Jayhawks (a bit out of the SEC culture there) signals to me that the SEC may one day hope to expand to 20 with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and either an Oklahoma or Florida State for content, or Georgia Tech for market consolidation and academics.

Once we are in a P4 any further moves will be for content (the only remaining factor for upping one's contract), or perhaps to consolidate markets if the payout model switches from a footprint model to either an actual household count, or a saturation model. The only other motivation for future realignment will be from the networks as they look for the minimum mix of content schools to achieve the markets they want. In some cases that might call for additions to existing conferences, but in most cases it will be for consolidation. So what I am suggesting is the winnowing of the existing P5 schools down to 60 or even 56 top revenue generators. But that process will occur a bit more naturally and over a larger time frame than the realignment moves that started up again in force in 1991-2.