Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1401
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-31-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A synopsis post about the likely options regarding the Big 12:

From a Network perspective:

There's a good chance that ESPN will use their advantageous position to push for the 10 schools of the Big 12 to merge with the ACC and SEC. Why? It would cost them between 700 to 800 million to move those 10 schools to those two conferences and elevate the ACC's payouts to 50 million and the SEC's to 55 million. That's 4% of the NET Worth of ESPN.

So far Amazon has been pushing for pro sports probably because pro sports produce their own product. Amazon doesn't have the kind of production presence to be able to easily go to college venues around the nation and create product. And, the schools would need some lead time to be able to get ready to prepare their own. So far there is no indication that Amazon will pursue college sports. But if you are ESPN why take a chance?

If you are ESPN you know you have roughly 45% of the BTN product now and that you have 100% of the ACC product until 2036 and all of the SEC product but 1 game a week until 2034. By acquiring the Big 12, even at that expense you can boost the payouts of the two conferences you own the highest % of a stake in, renegotiate the current contracts with a 10 year extension into the 2040's and lock down 40 of the top 65 schools early and well before Amazon could make a legitimate move for it. That gives you virtually 2 decades in which to prepare for the changing markets and adapt. 4% is a small stake in the future. With 45% of the Big 10 product you don't need the rest of it to gain some of the key games out of the Big 10. And if the PAC sells out completely to FOX or Amazon they don't compete with your time zones that well.

FOX will make a push to acquire key members of the Big 12 for their investment in the Big 10. But the Big 10 can really only take 3 of the current Big 12 and FOX would find it impossible to place the other 7 prior to the expiration of the GOR whereas ESPN can move all 10 and dissolve the Big 12. So that's a nice angle to play if you are ESPN. There's precious little time remaining on the Big 12's T3 rights and with UT's in hand along with KU's, all that ESPN need worry about is OU's which they in part acquire when their purchase of FOX's RSN's goes through. The buyout on the rest would be very affordable and I have factored it into the 700-800 million figure already.

Setting up 2 twenty member conferences in the ACC and SEC would allow for conference semi final games and would lock down the top and third best viewing regions and tie them to the largest market footprint for the linear networks. it would also encapsulate the lion's share of major rivalries for the Big 12/ACC/&SEC.

The PAC is ill positioned to do much about it. Their payouts are low and they would probably have to sell out their PACN in order to attract the kind of money they would need to make a big push for the Big 12 product.

In the past the Big 12 has been interested in a merger, but with the SEC, not the PAC.

Ten schools is too many for the SEC to absorb profitably. But 6 would be easier especially if the Mouse makes it worth our while. For the ACC 4 current Big 12 schools and another friend of Texas would get it done. The Horns would have their own division and regional play for minor sports, especially if minor sports boundaries and schedules are blurred with those of the SEC.

And again the PAC likely couldn't afford to offer all 10 schools and certainly would be apprehensive about taking some of those Big 12 schools that lag academically or have their undergraduate work under a Church's oversight (Baylor).

So in spite of conventional internet logic (or lack thereof) the real driving force, if we even have further realignment, will come from the networks dangling cash. Therefore I like the chances of the this kind of move coming to fruition and if it does it will happen long before 2024-5. And there's only 1 network who could pull it off.

The only question in my mind is whether one of the following scenarios preempts this opportunity:

1. The court rules to allow for larger stipends and some smaller privates back out creating a much different realignment environment than we currently envision.

2. ESPN decides it wants the Big 12 but doesn't want to pay them that much more so they dangle a smaller raise and get them to sign a more exclusive ESPN contract that allows ESPN to roll the LHN into a Big 12N and they extend the GOR and ESPN holds 3 conferences and there is no movement between them.

3. ESPN makes a play to own a much larger share of the Big 10 and they still pay to place all 10 Big 12 schools only the division includes the Big 10 now. But there would have to be some compromise. Everyone would get a prize, but nobody would get 2.

I would say what the conferences would prefer but most everybody has a good idea about that. The point here is the conferences will continue to take those the networks offer the most for them to accept. FOX and ESPN could be in opposition, but I'm more inclined to think that it would be cheaper for them if they gave each other a wink and worked out a profitable solution.

Time will tell. If I'm wrong nothing will happen in the next couple of years. If I'm right things could well bust wide open. Only this time there won't be any talk precipitating the moves. They'll be no news at all, and then surprisingly one day an announcement and things will be all over and done before the competition can get involved.

I don’t understand the need to place 10 Big 12 schools when there are really 4 brands that are worth paying for: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas Basketball, and West Virginia.

If you take OU and say OSU out of the Big 12, that Conference could remain as an eight team conference and just add more big non-conference matches. That would provide the best bang for the buck for the remaining Big 12 members unless the networks don’t value that inventory as much and refuse to over pay for nonexistent members as they are now.

If the Big 12 is going that expand, it’ll be from the poorest P5 conference, the PAC, as the networks did not think any of the current G5 candidates add value to the B12 when Boren did his famous interviews and presentations
04-02-2018 06:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1402
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 06:21 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(03-31-2018 11:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A synopsis post about the likely options regarding the Big 12:

From a Network perspective:

There's a good chance that ESPN will use their advantageous position to push for the 10 schools of the Big 12 to merge with the ACC and SEC. Why? It would cost them between 700 to 800 million to move those 10 schools to those two conferences and elevate the ACC's payouts to 50 million and the SEC's to 55 million. That's 4% of the NET Worth of ESPN.

So far Amazon has been pushing for pro sports probably because pro sports produce their own product. Amazon doesn't have the kind of production presence to be able to easily go to college venues around the nation and create product. And, the schools would need some lead time to be able to get ready to prepare their own. So far there is no indication that Amazon will pursue college sports. But if you are ESPN why take a chance?

If you are ESPN you know you have roughly 45% of the BTN product now and that you have 100% of the ACC product until 2036 and all of the SEC product but 1 game a week until 2034. By acquiring the Big 12, even at that expense you can boost the payouts of the two conferences you own the highest % of a stake in, renegotiate the current contracts with a 10 year extension into the 2040's and lock down 40 of the top 65 schools early and well before Amazon could make a legitimate move for it. That gives you virtually 2 decades in which to prepare for the changing markets and adapt. 4% is a small stake in the future. With 45% of the Big 10 product you don't need the rest of it to gain some of the key games out of the Big 10. And if the PAC sells out completely to FOX or Amazon they don't compete with your time zones that well.

FOX will make a push to acquire key members of the Big 12 for their investment in the Big 10. But the Big 10 can really only take 3 of the current Big 12 and FOX would find it impossible to place the other 7 prior to the expiration of the GOR whereas ESPN can move all 10 and dissolve the Big 12. So that's a nice angle to play if you are ESPN. There's precious little time remaining on the Big 12's T3 rights and with UT's in hand along with KU's, all that ESPN need worry about is OU's which they in part acquire when their purchase of FOX's RSN's goes through. The buyout on the rest would be very affordable and I have factored it into the 700-800 million figure already.

Setting up 2 twenty member conferences in the ACC and SEC would allow for conference semi final games and would lock down the top and third best viewing regions and tie them to the largest market footprint for the linear networks. it would also encapsulate the lion's share of major rivalries for the Big 12/ACC/&SEC.

The PAC is ill positioned to do much about it. Their payouts are low and they would probably have to sell out their PACN in order to attract the kind of money they would need to make a big push for the Big 12 product.

In the past the Big 12 has been interested in a merger, but with the SEC, not the PAC.

Ten schools is too many for the SEC to absorb profitably. But 6 would be easier especially if the Mouse makes it worth our while. For the ACC 4 current Big 12 schools and another friend of Texas would get it done. The Horns would have their own division and regional play for minor sports, especially if minor sports boundaries and schedules are blurred with those of the SEC.

And again the PAC likely couldn't afford to offer all 10 schools and certainly would be apprehensive about taking some of those Big 12 schools that lag academically or have their undergraduate work under a Church's oversight (Baylor).

So in spite of conventional internet logic (or lack thereof) the real driving force, if we even have further realignment, will come from the networks dangling cash. Therefore I like the chances of the this kind of move coming to fruition and if it does it will happen long before 2024-5. And there's only 1 network who could pull it off.

The only question in my mind is whether one of the following scenarios preempts this opportunity:

1. The court rules to allow for larger stipends and some smaller privates back out creating a much different realignment environment than we currently envision.

2. ESPN decides it wants the Big 12 but doesn't want to pay them that much more so they dangle a smaller raise and get them to sign a more exclusive ESPN contract that allows ESPN to roll the LHN into a Big 12N and they extend the GOR and ESPN holds 3 conferences and there is no movement between them.

3. ESPN makes a play to own a much larger share of the Big 10 and they still pay to place all 10 Big 12 schools only the division includes the Big 10 now. But there would have to be some compromise. Everyone would get a prize, but nobody would get 2.

I would say what the conferences would prefer but most everybody has a good idea about that. The point here is the conferences will continue to take those the networks offer the most for them to accept. FOX and ESPN could be in opposition, but I'm more inclined to think that it would be cheaper for them if they gave each other a wink and worked out a profitable solution.

Time will tell. If I'm wrong nothing will happen in the next couple of years. If I'm right things could well bust wide open. Only this time there won't be any talk precipitating the moves. They'll be no news at all, and then surprisingly one day an announcement and things will be all over and done before the competition can get involved.

I don’t understand the need to place 10 Big 12 schools when there are really 4 brands that are worth paying for: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas Basketball, and West Virginia.

If you take OU and say OSU out of the Big 12, that Conference could remain as an eight team conference and just add more big non-conference matches. That would provide the best bang for the buck for the remaining Big 12 members unless the networks don’t value that inventory as much and refuse to over pay for nonexistent members as they are now.

If the Big 12 is going that expand, it’ll be from the poorest P5 conference, the PAC, as the networks did not think any of the current G5 candidates add value to the B12 when Boren did his famous interviews and presentations

The timeline is why you place all 10. You have to in order to be able to move earlier than the expiration of the Big 12's GOR. The GOR can be voided with 8 votes. The other two could then sue and tie up the deal for a few years. If you have to take 8 it's not that big of an expense to take all 10.

Having 2 or more Texas schools in each of the ACC and SEC simply gives ESPN what they've sought in every other state, a monopoly of all of the major schools, without allowing a conference to hold them all. They were unable to crack N.C. State and Va. Tech loose from the ACC in 2010 which would have split those states between the SEC and ACC, and they won't be able to do that to the Mississippi and Alabama schools because of the strength of the SEC and the historical associations. But they've managed to it pretty much everywhere else.

Remember that ESPN holds the rights to every school of any size South of Virginia/Kentucky/&Missouri except for the Big 12 schools where through the SEC and AAC they hold Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Arkansas. If they land the Big 12 schools they own all of Texas. That's 29 million sets of eyes, potentially, x the number of Texas P5 schools (5) and AAC schools (2) every weekend. Toss in the Oklahoma pair to add to Tulsa and that region becomes 34 million plus x 10 in the most lucrative regional sports market in the U.S.

The point here Murrdcu is that if you want to watch the Texas and Oklahoma schools play, any of them play, you'd have to buy an ESPN app or subscription. That's massive in terms of market advantage.

The damned market model was the carrot used by ESPN to break up, or keep conferences from, owning an entire state's product because that gives the conference leverage. But ESPN has through the ACC or SEC with the AAC tossed in, owned every product of value within every state south of that Virginia to Missouri line I stated. That's the #1 footprint and the #1 and #3 highest viewer saturated regions for college sports viewing if the Big 12 is added to it. And it's not like Iowa State doesn't hold value for ESPN. If they have to accommodate I.S.U., K.S.U. and Kansas, those still give ESPN entrance into Chicago and other Midwestern cities and compliments what Notre Dame does for them.

When the Big 10 initially tried to shut ESPN out over a contract dispute ESPN began to find alternate ways to get into the markets of those Northern cities. So Boston, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, were additions for Northeastern markets and Louisville, Cincinnati through the AAC, Philadelphia through Temple, and Notre Dame for Cincinnati, Indianapolis, part of Eastern Michigan, Chicago, and Detroit gave ESPN a way to advertise in the Big 10 markets without having a Big 10 school.

Now simply owning 45% of the Big 10's rights helps them to accomplish these goals.

So the cost of placing all 10 of their schools has value not to our conferences but to ESPN because of the market control it gives them. Therefore if they are willing to pay the ACC and SEC to take them, why should we refuse if it profits us to do so?
04-02-2018 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1403
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
The difficult part about a 20 team league will be both adding games to the conference slate as well as a semifinal round.

You have to play the 4 in your division...no wiggle room there.

You really need a consistent rotation among the rest of the schools as well as some permanent rivals because there's no way every rivalry can be contained within your division.

If you play a permanent rival from each of the other divisions then that's 7 so far. Use 3 more games to rotate through each of the other teams in the other divisions. That's 10 total which is ideal in certain respects because everyone gets 5 home and 5 away conference games.

However, you have to find a spot for the semifinal game and it might not be difficult getting the NCAA to extend the season, but that's a very tough schedule when you consider the addition of 2 conference games. It also leaves very little room to schedule non-conference games.

We'll have a P4 and I'm not sure where else the B1G or PAC would go to add schools...perhaps no additions for them.
04-02-2018 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1404
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 02:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The difficult part about a 20 team league will be both adding games to the conference slate as well as a semifinal round.

You have to play the 4 in your division...no wiggle room there.

You really need a consistent rotation among the rest of the schools as well as some permanent rivals because there's no way every rivalry can be contained within your division.

If you play a permanent rival from each of the other divisions then that's 7 so far. Use 3 more games to rotate through each of the other teams in the other divisions. That's 10 total which is ideal in certain respects because everyone gets 5 home and 5 away conference games.

However, you have to find a spot for the semifinal game and it might not be difficult getting the NCAA to extend the season, but that's a very tough schedule when you consider the addition of 2 conference games. It also leaves very little room to schedule non-conference games.

We'll have a P4 and I'm not sure where else the B1G or PAC would go to add schools...perhaps no additions for them.

4 conference divisional games. 1 rotating division (every year). 1 permanent rival. = 10 conference games. 2 OOC games. 1 preseason game against a local FCS or G5 school (mid August but the ticket sold in the season book for the 7th home game) replaces the Spring Game and adds more value. The season doesn't have to be extended. We'll just need a week break between the end of the regular season and the conference semis. If the conference semis were the first weekend in December and the finals the second weekend in December those schools will likely be in the New Year's bowls, and the winner in the CFP. So you still have a two week break before the Bowls and CFP.

As to the PAC and Big 10 they probably merge for athletics and would probably be a conference of 24 to 26 schools.

Three champs automatically qualify for the CFP and 1 at large selection is made to complete the field.
04-02-2018 03:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1405
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 02:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The difficult part about a 20 team league will be both adding games to the conference slate as well as a semifinal round.

You have to play the 4 in your division...no wiggle room there.

You really need a consistent rotation among the rest of the schools as well as some permanent rivals because there's no way every rivalry can be contained within your division.

If you play a permanent rival from each of the other divisions then that's 7 so far. Use 3 more games to rotate through each of the other teams in the other divisions. That's 10 total which is ideal in certain respects because everyone gets 5 home and 5 away conference games.

However, you have to find a spot for the semifinal game and it might not be difficult getting the NCAA to extend the season, but that's a very tough schedule when you consider the addition of 2 conference games. It also leaves very little room to schedule non-conference games.

We'll have a P4 and I'm not sure where else the B1G or PAC would go to add schools...perhaps no additions for them.

4 conference divisional games. 1 rotating division (every year). 1 permanent rival. = 10 conference games. 2 OOC games. 1 preseason game against a local FCS or G5 school (mid August but the ticket sold in the season book for the 7th home game) replaces the Spring Game and adds more value. The season doesn't have to be extended. We'll just need a week break between the end of the regular season and the conference semis. If the conference semis were the first weekend in December and the finals the second weekend in December those schools will likely be in the New Year's bowls, and the winner in the CFP. So you still have a two week break before the Bowls and CFP.

As to the PAC and Big 10 they probably merge for athletics and would probably be a conference of 24 to 26 schools.

Three champs automatically qualify for the CFP and 1 at large selection is made to complete the field.

I don't think you could do it that way...throws the balance off.

Every 3rd year you're going to end up running into the division to which your permanent rival belongs. You'd either have to play them twice, not have a 10th game that year, or play someone else from another division in their place. If it's the latter then at that point everyone's rival essentially changes for a single season, but it would never be the same season for everyone. I don't think it would be feasible.

What you could do is simply rotate divisions every year and keep it at 9 games. Try to make sure your most important rival is in the same division as you are and just play the others once every 3 years. Not ideal, but it does have the interesting feature of allowing division winners to have precisely the same schedule as all their division mates. You also wouldn't need the semi.

I would rather have a system that guarantees the permanent rival though.
04-02-2018 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1406
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 03:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 02:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The difficult part about a 20 team league will be both adding games to the conference slate as well as a semifinal round.

You have to play the 4 in your division...no wiggle room there.

You really need a consistent rotation among the rest of the schools as well as some permanent rivals because there's no way every rivalry can be contained within your division.

If you play a permanent rival from each of the other divisions then that's 7 so far. Use 3 more games to rotate through each of the other teams in the other divisions. That's 10 total which is ideal in certain respects because everyone gets 5 home and 5 away conference games.

However, you have to find a spot for the semifinal game and it might not be difficult getting the NCAA to extend the season, but that's a very tough schedule when you consider the addition of 2 conference games. It also leaves very little room to schedule non-conference games.

We'll have a P4 and I'm not sure where else the B1G or PAC would go to add schools...perhaps no additions for them.

4 conference divisional games. 1 rotating division (every year). 1 permanent rival. = 10 conference games. 2 OOC games. 1 preseason game against a local FCS or G5 school (mid August but the ticket sold in the season book for the 7th home game) replaces the Spring Game and adds more value. The season doesn't have to be extended. We'll just need a week break between the end of the regular season and the conference semis. If the conference semis were the first weekend in December and the finals the second weekend in December those schools will likely be in the New Year's bowls, and the winner in the CFP. So you still have a two week break before the Bowls and CFP.

As to the PAC and Big 10 they probably merge for athletics and would probably be a conference of 24 to 26 schools.

Three champs automatically qualify for the CFP and 1 at large selection is made to complete the field.

I don't think you could do it that way...throws the balance off.

Every 3rd year you're going to end up running into the division to which your permanent rival belongs. You'd either have to play them twice, not have a 10th game that year, or play someone else from another division in their place. If it's the latter then at that point everyone's rival essentially changes for a single season, but it would never be the same season for everyone. I don't think it would be feasible.

What you could do is simply rotate divisions every year and keep it at 9 games. Try to make sure your most important rival is in the same division as you are and just play the others once every 3 years. Not ideal, but it does have the interesting feature of allowing division winners to have precisely the same schedule as all their division mates. You also wouldn't need the semi.

I would rather have a system that guarantees the permanent rival though.

In those years you rotate a designated school from another division. Since everyone's schedules would be set up on the same format an opening would always be there.
04-02-2018 04:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Vamos Morados
*

Posts: 7,468
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 121
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #1407
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
If there are only eight votes needed to dissolve the Big 12, the four-letter network really only needs to place eight schools. Kansas State and Baylor draw the short straws. Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and West Virginia head to the SEC. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.
04-02-2018 07:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1408
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 07:05 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If there are only eight votes needed to dissolve the Big 12, the four-letter network really only needs to place eight schools. Kansas State and Baylor draw the short straws. Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and West Virginia head to the SEC. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

It would just resolve so many ancillary distractions to go ahead and take care of all of them. Otherwise in 2025 it won't take any votes. But then ESPN would not be able to scoop what they wanted before everyone else got involved in the bidding. So the price of Baylor and KState is small potatoes compared to the bigger picture targets.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2018 08:31 PM by JRsec.)
04-02-2018 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1409
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 07:05 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If there are only eight votes needed to dissolve the Big 12, the four-letter network really only needs to place eight schools. Kansas State and Baylor draw the short straws. Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and West Virginia head to the SEC. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

It would just resolve so many ancillary distractions to go ahead and take care of all of them. Otherwise in 2025 it won't take any votes. But then ESPN would not be able to scoop what they wanted before everyone else got involve in the bidding. So the price of Baylor and KState is small potatoes compared to the bigger picture targets.

Correct, Everything will have to take place in a tight time frame.
Everything should be "arranged" before hand, but if not, the threat of legal action would throw timing off for ESPN and the ACC and SEC.
04-02-2018 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1410
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 03:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 02:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The difficult part about a 20 team league will be both adding games to the conference slate as well as a semifinal round.

You have to play the 4 in your division...no wiggle room there.

You really need a consistent rotation among the rest of the schools as well as some permanent rivals because there's no way every rivalry can be contained within your division.

If you play a permanent rival from each of the other divisions then that's 7 so far. Use 3 more games to rotate through each of the other teams in the other divisions. That's 10 total which is ideal in certain respects because everyone gets 5 home and 5 away conference games.

However, you have to find a spot for the semifinal game and it might not be difficult getting the NCAA to extend the season, but that's a very tough schedule when you consider the addition of 2 conference games. It also leaves very little room to schedule non-conference games.

We'll have a P4 and I'm not sure where else the B1G or PAC would go to add schools...perhaps no additions for them.

4 conference divisional games. 1 rotating division (every year). 1 permanent rival. = 10 conference games. 2 OOC games. 1 preseason game against a local FCS or G5 school (mid August but the ticket sold in the season book for the 7th home game) replaces the Spring Game and adds more value. The season doesn't have to be extended. We'll just need a week break between the end of the regular season and the conference semis. If the conference semis were the first weekend in December and the finals the second weekend in December those schools will likely be in the New Year's bowls, and the winner in the CFP. So you still have a two week break before the Bowls and CFP.

As to the PAC and Big 10 they probably merge for athletics and would probably be a conference of 24 to 26 schools.

Three champs automatically qualify for the CFP and 1 at large selection is made to complete the field.

I don't think you could do it that way...throws the balance off.

Every 3rd year you're going to end up running into the division to which your permanent rival belongs. You'd either have to play them twice, not have a 10th game that year, or play someone else from another division in their place. If it's the latter then at that point everyone's rival essentially changes for a single season, but it would never be the same season for everyone. I don't think it would be feasible.

What you could do is simply rotate divisions every year and keep it at 9 games. Try to make sure your most important rival is in the same division as you are and just play the others once every 3 years. Not ideal, but it does have the interesting feature of allowing division winners to have precisely the same schedule as all their division mates. You also wouldn't need the semi.

I would rather have a system that guarantees the permanent rival though.

In those years you rotate a designated school from another division. Since everyone's schedules would be set up on the same format an opening would always be there.

Yes, but the math is complicated.

The problem is one's permanent rival will be determined on the basis of tradition or perhaps geography. That means everyone's permanent rival arrives on the schedule in an asymmetric manner.

So if you're rotating whole divisions then this quirk in the schedule doesn't happen for everyone in the same season. I'm not even sure it's possible to ensure that the same number of schools experience this quirk in each of the seasons during a 3 year cycle.

So while you'd always play your respective team's permanent rival, the available options for a replacement in that 3rd season will be limited by the number of schools experiencing the same situation in the same season.

But it could be even worse. The pool of suitable replacements might shrink even further when you consider that whoever that school is...you have to play their entire division in one of the other seasons during the cycle. So your replacement's division mates become relevant as the year in which they experience the quirk becomes crucial to making sure everyone has a suitable option in the correct season.

Not only would you not be able to rotate through the other schools an equal number of times, but you'd have issues with keeping much of anything else symmetric.

-Ensuring each team gets the same number of home and away every season.

-Ensuring an equal number of home and way games with each conference opponent.

-Ensuring no one school gets favorable treatment or unfavorable treatment with regard to strength of schedule.

And I'm spitballing here, but I'm guessing the fact that each division has an odd number of teams might add an extra layer of difficulty.
04-02-2018 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1411
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 09:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 04:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 03:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 02:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The difficult part about a 20 team league will be both adding games to the conference slate as well as a semifinal round.

You have to play the 4 in your division...no wiggle room there.

You really need a consistent rotation among the rest of the schools as well as some permanent rivals because there's no way every rivalry can be contained within your division.

If you play a permanent rival from each of the other divisions then that's 7 so far. Use 3 more games to rotate through each of the other teams in the other divisions. That's 10 total which is ideal in certain respects because everyone gets 5 home and 5 away conference games.

However, you have to find a spot for the semifinal game and it might not be difficult getting the NCAA to extend the season, but that's a very tough schedule when you consider the addition of 2 conference games. It also leaves very little room to schedule non-conference games.

We'll have a P4 and I'm not sure where else the B1G or PAC would go to add schools...perhaps no additions for them.

4 conference divisional games. 1 rotating division (every year). 1 permanent rival. = 10 conference games. 2 OOC games. 1 preseason game against a local FCS or G5 school (mid August but the ticket sold in the season book for the 7th home game) replaces the Spring Game and adds more value. The season doesn't have to be extended. We'll just need a week break between the end of the regular season and the conference semis. If the conference semis were the first weekend in December and the finals the second weekend in December those schools will likely be in the New Year's bowls, and the winner in the CFP. So you still have a two week break before the Bowls and CFP.

As to the PAC and Big 10 they probably merge for athletics and would probably be a conference of 24 to 26 schools.

Three champs automatically qualify for the CFP and 1 at large selection is made to complete the field.

I don't think you could do it that way...throws the balance off.

Every 3rd year you're going to end up running into the division to which your permanent rival belongs. You'd either have to play them twice, not have a 10th game that year, or play someone else from another division in their place. If it's the latter then at that point everyone's rival essentially changes for a single season, but it would never be the same season for everyone. I don't think it would be feasible.

What you could do is simply rotate divisions every year and keep it at 9 games. Try to make sure your most important rival is in the same division as you are and just play the others once every 3 years. Not ideal, but it does have the interesting feature of allowing division winners to have precisely the same schedule as all their division mates. You also wouldn't need the semi.

I would rather have a system that guarantees the permanent rival though.

In those years you rotate a designated school from another division. Since everyone's schedules would be set up on the same format an opening would always be there.

Yes, but the math is complicated.

The problem is one's permanent rival will be determined on the basis of tradition or perhaps geography. That means everyone's permanent rival arrives on the schedule in an asymmetric manner.

So if you're rotating whole divisions then this quirk in the schedule doesn't happen for everyone in the same season. I'm not even sure it's possible to ensure that the same number of schools experience this quirk in each of the seasons during a 3 year cycle.

So while you'd always play your respective team's permanent rival, the available options for a replacement in that 3rd season will be limited by the number of schools experiencing the same situation in the same season.

But it could be even worse. The pool of suitable replacements might shrink even further when you consider that whoever that school is...you have to play their entire division in one of the other seasons during the cycle. So your replacement's division mates become relevant as the year in which they experience the quirk becomes crucial to making sure everyone has a suitable option in the correct season.

Not only would you not be able to rotate through the other schools an equal number of times, but you'd have issues with keeping much of anything else symmetric.

-Ensuring each team gets the same number of home and away every season.

-Ensuring an equal number of home and way games with each conference opponent.

-Ensuring no one school gets favorable treatment or unfavorable treatment with regard to strength of schedule.

And I'm spitballing here, but I'm guessing the fact that each division has an odd number of teams might add an extra layer of difficulty.

In any given year you have 10 permanent rival games, 5 home and 5 away. And outside of the one you must play every year it doesn't really matter who subs for them when you are playing their home division.

But truly ATU, we pay the conference office lots of money to figure these things out. Let's let them earn it. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2018 10:42 PM by JRsec.)
04-02-2018 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RocketCitySooner Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 49
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Sooners
Location:
Post: #1412
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-02-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 07:05 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If there are only eight votes needed to dissolve the Big 12, the four-letter network really only needs to place eight schools. Kansas State and Baylor draw the short straws. Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and West Virginia head to the SEC. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

It would just resolve so many ancillary distractions to go ahead and take care of all of them. Otherwise in 2025 it won't take any votes. But then ESPN would not be able to scoop what they wanted before everyone else got involved in the bidding. So the price of Baylor and KState is small potatoes compared to the bigger picture targets.

Some qustions:
Can eight schools truly dissolve the GOR/XII conference? Did not the schools sell their rights to the conference? Are these rights property? Did the Conference sell those rights to the nets? If the schools dissolve the conference would not the nets still retain the tv rights?
Another question:
Is it true that Boren tried to market OU/OSU as a pair to the SEC back in 2011?
One wonders if those tales of OU being adverse to the SEC are true?
04-04-2018 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
imjustafatkid Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 794
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Bama/UAB/UNA
Location:
Post: #1413
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.
04-04-2018 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RocketCitySooner Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 49
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Sooners
Location:
Post: #1414
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-04-2018 10:34 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.

I think at one time (2010-2012), Boren was fixated on keeping OU/OSU together. I've heard things have changed and staying with OSU is no longer considered a necessity. Fine with me. I've never consider OSU a big rival anyway. I think OU leads the series 87–18–7. True, OSU probably considers OU a rival but I think most OU fans would consider Nebraska or Texas as more important.
04-04-2018 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1415
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-04-2018 11:45 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 10:34 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.

I think at one time (2010-2012), Boren was fixated on keeping OU/OSU together. I've heard things have changed and staying with OSU is no longer considered a necessity. Fine with me. I've never consider OSU a big rival anyway. I think OU leads the series 87–18–7. True, OSU probably considers OU a rival but I think most OU fans would consider Nebraska or Texas as more important.

There are 16 campuses in the UNC system. Each of the 16 has it's own BOT but all 16 are controlled by a Board of Governors.
If a school wanted to change conferences that would negatively impact another school in the system, it is no longer an athletic problem, but a political one.
I don't know about Oklahoma's situation but I would imagine Boren (and his replacement) will look at the economic impact and the political fallout before allowing a split of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
In North Carolina it would be highly doubtful that splitting Carolina and NC State would be possible unless all parties agreed and the economic impact would be a net gain instead of lost revenue. Even then, unless political consensus could be voiced by the citizens, I doubt it could ever come to pass.
04-04-2018 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1416
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-04-2018 08:53 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-02-2018 07:05 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If there are only eight votes needed to dissolve the Big 12, the four-letter network really only needs to place eight schools. Kansas State and Baylor draw the short straws. Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and West Virginia head to the SEC. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

It would just resolve so many ancillary distractions to go ahead and take care of all of them. Otherwise in 2025 it won't take any votes. But then ESPN would not be able to scoop what they wanted before everyone else got involved in the bidding. So the price of Baylor and KState is small potatoes compared to the bigger picture targets.

Some qustions:
Can eight schools truly dissolve the GOR/XII conference? Did not the schools sell their rights to the conference? Are these rights property? Did the Conference sell those rights to the nets? If the schools dissolve the conference would not the nets still retain the tv rights?
Another question:
Is it true that Boren tried to market OU/OSU as a pair to the SEC back in 2011?
One wonders if those tales of OU being adverse to the SEC are true?

On 8 schools, what they can dissolve by vote is the conference. Big 12 bylaws require a vote of 75% of its membership to dissolve. The question over the rights having been purchased by the network is another matter. But if there is no longer a conference then if one or the other media partners (currently FOX & ESPN) choose to buyout the other it can be done. It would be especially easy if ESPN for instance bought out FOX's 50% and then sublet them those rights for the same cost until the end of the contract.

Why might FOX go for this? Because it would give them access to SEC and ACC away games to the Big 12 members whose rights they've sublet so for the duration of the current rights (2025) that gives them a draw into more lucrative markets with higher profile games. And then if they wanted to try to buy rights outright they could compete for them around 2030 for the SEC and 2036 for the ACC.

As to Boren in 2011 yes he tried to market both schools to the SEC. We couldn't even consider it at the time because ESPN was interested in only seeing us add two and A&M was already on board with coming over. At the time we were adding two to fulfill the contract terms for renegotiating an existing contract. Those terms stated we had to add two "new" markets. That is the only reason that Florida State and Clemson could not be considered. It is also why OSU as a second could not be considered.

And to Imafatkid, there was no "Gentlemen's agreement to blackball schools from existing states by those states other member schools. In fact Florida sponsored Florida State in '91-2 for membership because they feared that with conferences expanding that their money game (the FSU game) might one day be jeopardized by the size of conferences. Therefore the best way to protect the very game that they based their donations upon would be in doubt. This was so much of an issue that the only gentlemen's agreement that Mike Slive asked for was that we have an understanding not to nominate our in state rivals until we met the two new markets clause in the contract with ESPN. CBS didn't care one way or the other because they were only buying 14 games from us at the time and adding schools didn't really increase their inventory.

Clay Travis, a putz who hasn't been right about anything, was the one who pushed the canard about the blackball and then it became an internet myth because of the damned chat rooms.

The myth was allowed to persist because ESPN didn't want conferences essentially monopolizing whole large states because the Mouse wanted to double dip from two conferences into Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina and Virginia. That's why in 2011 there was also the push for N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. At the time there was a bigger deal in play to attract key brands from the Big 12 to the ACC so that the branding of the ACC could be built up. There were also plans even back then for the ACCN to launch one year after the SECN and for the two footprints to be shared in marketing.

You have to remember that under the market footprint subscription fee pay model the size of potential markets were more important than any single school's brand status. So the SEC was to expand with A&M, another from the Big 12 and Missouri was allegedly suggested and pushed by the network, and N.C. State and Virginia Tech were to be the other two. The conference was a bit concerned about the reaction of its fan base to N.C. State and Virginia Tech when most fans, self included, were more interested in adding Florida State and Clemson. So Travis was used to leak the possibility of N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC, Mr. SEC sold the public on the value of the additions, and everyone got ready. in late 2010 we met with Va Tech folks and afterward the ACC called off this concept. So briefly after that ESPN had a crawler announcing Florida State and Clemson to the SEC. Supposedly we were pissed enough after all of the work invested in this process that ESPN relented on letting those two go. It was also supposedly the catalyst that led to the Maryland departure. The Terps had been in informal talks with the Big 10 and when the money maker deal the ACC had promised fell through they bolted. N.D. who had been privy to all of this then said they would join the ACC as a partial, but they wanted the football first schools in place or there would be no deal. So ESPN supposedly declined the release of those two schools a few days later and promised full coverage for the SECN at its opening as a peace offering. GOR's were slapped into place in the Big 12 and then the ACC and here we are.

Loftin has written about the no two schools from the same state sentiment, but that was the ESPN preference in those days, as indicated by the renegotiation clause, and that's what they paid to enforce. It's also what the Aggie fan base who bought his book wanted to hear.

Today with streaming becoming reality for delivery systems, content will rule the day. So branding now is more important than it has ever been before. Markets are not without value, but a brand that dominates a larger market would be the preference. So schools like Oklahoma and Texas are powerhouse additions potentially, and Florida State would again add to the bottom line.

The economic impact of Oklahoma is just over 1 billion dollars to its region. To put that into perspective that is just under half of the total economic impact of the ACC. Texas and Oklahoma together are only behind the total economic impact of the ACC by $250,000,000.

This is why Oklahoma with Oklahoma State is probably valuable enough to move as a pair. They both have good draw out of Dallas / Ft. Worth and both have the interest of people in the Texas/Oklahoma viewing region of 34 million people. Texas would do essentially the same thing, but we do already have A&M already delivering a strong % of the region. Would we take Texas? Yes. They carry too much value by themselves to turn them down. Would we take Texas with Tech? I think we might, especially if Kansas and Oklahoma headed to the Big 10 because then Texas and Tech would provide a strong enough grasp on the region to negate the economic impact of the Oklahoma/Kansas move and to keep the SEC in command of branding and at the top of the pay scale in total revenue. Plus they are an academic plumb even if they are a social pariah.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 02:48 PM by JRsec.)
04-04-2018 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1417
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-04-2018 10:34 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.

FYI: The University of Florida sponsored F.S.U. for membership in '91-2, and wanted to sponsor the again in 2010-2. Spurrier supported the addition of Clemson as did South Carolina. Georgia was willing, and under some political pressure to support Tech, but the SEC didn't find enough value in Tech to have considered them, and then there was the 2 new market requirement to renegotiate the contract. So an internet myth was born.

Of the existing in state rivals only Kentucky didn't want theirs in prior to adding A&M where the fan base wants to keep Texas out.

What you read from beat writers is designed to do 1 thing, sell newspapers. So enhancing myths of rivalry sells papers. What was done by our presidents in the conference meeting is entirely different. The only reason the anti in state rival stories circulated was because under the market pay model they didn't add new value. Under the content driven pay model they will.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2018 01:45 PM by JRsec.)
04-04-2018 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1418
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-05-2018 01:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Auburn is our chief rival. There's a reason we play the final week of the season.

Tennessee is significant for a lot of us though. Beyond the elder generation, there are many of us in my generation old enough to remember the antics of Phil Fulmer and that pretty much seals it.

While Auburn and Tennessee don't play regularly anymore, I will admit there have been times I have cheered for Auburn to win that game.

Now, today's college kids? They probably don't care about Tennessee that much because they're too young to remember the last time the series was competitive.

I've always thought the Bama/Tennessee game is very comparable to the Auburn/Georgia game. It may not be the most important rivalry, but everyone still looks forward to it.

Thank you ATU.

Now guys lets get back to discussing the SEC's realignment options in the Big 12. We've let a UAB fan derail this epic thread for 1 page. And just so you know this page averages about 100 hits a day from people wanting to check the news or thoughts on the SEC and Big 12. It's why this thread is pinned. The ECU thread average about 70 views a day even when it's inactive for posts.

I try to protect these two threads for that reason. I'm not trying to be a rump about it but this board gets activity on these two threads that frequently exceeds those reading what are in the threads below. So let's try to keep it on topic. I thought about cutting this last page out of the thread, but haven't made a decision on it yet.

Thanks.

Now to bring it back to focus we have discussed which two additions from the Big 12 might represent the next SEC acquisitions, and recently we've discussed the viability and kind of split that might happen if ESPN absorbs the Big 12 schools (all of them) into the SEC and ACC and does it prior to the expiration of the Big 12 contracts and GOR. The reasoning was that ESPN could lock down that product by accommodating all of them so that the conference could be dissolved, the rights bought out, and new contracts renegotiated for an expanded ACC and SEC and that it could be prior to any outside competition getting into the sports rights business which of course would be ESPN's motive for such an action.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2018 02:21 PM by JRsec.)
04-05-2018 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1419
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-04-2018 10:34 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.

FYI (#2)
The probability that Duke and or North Carolina would ever want to join the SEC is pretty close to zero.
04-05-2018 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1420
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(04-05-2018 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(04-04-2018 10:34 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.

FYI (#2)
The probability that Duke and or North Carolina would ever want to join the SEC is pretty close to zero.

Actually, the complete opposite.

Quote:Cunningham had no shortage of input. A steady stream of emails from alumni, fans and boosters began on Nov. 20.

The notes came from everywhere: from people who graduated from UNC in the 1960s, and those who graduated in the past few years. Former athletes wrote in. There were Rams Club members. And emails from fans who had no tie to the school other than their allegiance.

One came from an Army major who wrote of how he’d followed UNC athletics throughout deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. He expressed concern about a conference move and wrote, “I will always love Carolina, but my fervor towards our athletic programs would die a rapid death should we choose to enter the BIG TEN.”

The emails – many coming after UNC fans on the message boards at InsideCarolina.com organized a push to fill Cunningham’s inbox – shared roughly the same sentiment: Lead the Tar Heels out of the crumbling ACC, to a better place. The overwhelming majority of fans preferred moving to the SEC. Among the more than 150 pages of emails that Cunningham received in the 10 days after Maryland’s announcement, only one email favored joining the Big Ten.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/frankthetan...mails/amp/
(This post was last modified: 04-06-2018 07:05 AM by murrdcu.)
04-06-2018 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.