USAFMEDIC
Heisman

Posts: 5,919
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
|
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 10:42 PM)JRsec Wrote: (05-06-2018 10:17 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: (05-06-2018 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: (05-06-2018 08:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: Looking at geography, the SEC borders EVERY state that contains B12 schools. And the B12 is not even contiguous with Iowa (ISU) and West Virginia. So from a geographical perspective, the SEC could assess them all with more confidence in terms of logistical factors.
The BIG, to reach Texas, has to include Kansas and Oklahoma, or jump them. If that happened, the BIG would look tornado-shaped, blowing hard-east. The BIG has been a east-west expansion conference; then it would take a southern drop on the west end if Texas (& co.) were added. Texas would find it hard to bond with the unnatural flow, travel, weather, and non-traditional differences.
The ACC make no sense for Texas; but WVU, absolutely does.
The PAC12 would need a "cluster" from the B12 for practicality purposes. Iowa State is east of Nebraska, and wouldn't fit well even with a cluster. A separated-out Kansas school would be an odd fit as well. UT, TTU, OU, and oSu was the old try; and perhaps some version of it could be pursued again if sentiments and financial incentives drift that way.
I don't know what the SEC will do, if anything, in a few years if the B12 breaks or becomes vulnerable. I do believe a few will indeed leave the B12 around 23/24. The conference has never really been settled-down and content. The year 2023/24 is really not that far off, so those that are prone to explore are already doing so. Within three years, leaks as to anticipated movements, will abound with growing confidence. Does Bowlsby have a strategy to prevent such? The same ole PR line won't work if a couple or so are unhappy and have somewhere else to go that looks like an improvement.
The SEC is positioned best in all this if they play their cards right. If Slive was still around (no slight to Sankey intended--don't know enough about his style), he'd have plan A already set up, and a damn good plan B just in case. He was a very good "expansion" chess player.
I agree with all of the bolded part and in principle on the rest. Normally realignment would be about geography, the appeasement of the alumni consumers and donors, and of course the money.
One could argue that a move to 20 that included Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State along with the top 3 would be a strong go toward owning the region and settling things down permanently. But as you have expressed already you doubt that we grow larger without first settling at 16. I agree with the logic of that in a pre streaming world. In a post streaming world being the go to channel for all things important to those states, while also holding top national brands, will be what keeps the subscription money flowing in. Take those 6 and the SEC can let everyone else settle whatever it is they need to do.
Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
With those set up in half divisions the WAC rotation works fine for a 9 game schedule. Add 1 permanent rival and we are at 10. That leaves two OOC games to satisfy other contingencies.
From a marketing standpoint that maximizes the West and only leaves Florida at less capacity. But if still bundled with the ACC it doesn't matter.
If the ACC wants a slice of Texas they have Baylor and T.C.U. to accommodate. Add Connecticut, Cincinnati and Houston if they want to go to 20. There's always Tulane if you want to connect the dots to Houston, but they don't bring much to the table.
If we were staying with simply linear networks I would wholeheartedly agree with the best two additions and stopping.
If Missouri has proven anything it's that you can't really incorporate a school adequately unless you permit them to bring a core of a familiar schedule. This ultimately is why adding pairs from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would permit their cementing into the conference.
Separate Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State out and you get an agitated market where dis-affected alums and irritated state officials can hurt your marketing strategy. Moving forward controlling all of the largest alumni bases in a state will have the important upside of keeping the best advertising rates if the merchandisers want access to your audiences they have to go through you. You aren't leaving a back door in like the Big 10 did by failing to land the Irish.
As you noted, I am not a fan of going the mega-conference (over 16) route, but may talk more about that at another time. Too tired tonight and over my limit.
I do think the SEC may want to improve the Mizzou comfort level. Mizzou seems OK playing in the SEC-east, but it is a bit awkward in terms of geography. Another school bordering Mizzou could help their situation. I don't know if they really want a Kansas school. A couple of years ago, I heard they didn't due to competition for recruits. Oklahoma would be another short southern border state that connects to Texas with A&M, and Oklahoma is an old B8/B12 foe/comrade.
I doubt there is a lot of SEC passion to travel to either Kansas, and certainly not Ames, Iowa. But I understand the unsettled variables.
And the SEC having 3 Texas schools? Don't think that will fly regardless of what ESPN wants. Do you think Alabama and Auburn would buy into that? Power centers matter to some more than others.
Beware, the one school to one state model dies with cable subscriptions. Moving forward controlling a state guarantees the best advertising rates for your carrier, which in turn supplies you with the most money. We are going to rue the day we don't have another Florida school as the payout model shifts. I said that in 2008 and it's still true today.
In 1992 Florida was concerned about "not" having F.S.U. in the conference. Their concern at the time was that if we continued growth eventually OOC rivals would be in jeopardy. Their president (UF's) then argued for F.S.U.'s inclusion. That fear was expressed in the meetings of 2010. Only the subscription fee model tabled the notion of adding another major school from within 1 state.
Now if ESPN holds the SEC contract and the ACC contract and between those two conferences all of the top product in that state is held then we can afford not to take them all. But should another network's conference acquire some of those schools the add rates will drop.
Look at a map and plot the schools that ESPN holds the rights to through the AAC, ACC, and SEC and you will see a solid map from Virginia through Kentucky and over to Missouri being solid down through Mississippi and Arkansas and down the entire east coast south of Virginia to Miami. That's why the ad rates are solid for the SEC without our having to hold Clemson and Florida State. We may not be so lucky in Texas and Auburn and Alabama would hardly care if we, having all 3 state schools in Texas, garnered the highest rate on 28 million people.
Streaming will bring about larger, not smaller conferences, and the schools that comprise them will consolidate their states viewing audiences. In a streaming world you can't afford to share a state. You have to dominate their viewing habits. Oklahoma and Texas have the highest market saturation for college sports outside of the SEC.
What worked in 2010 won't work in 2024. Put it out of your mind. The ability to pay on actual viewers is here. Advertisers aren't going to pay for rates on the # of cable subscribers if they can pay for the actual number of viewers. And they sure as heck aren't going to give top rates to the ACC and SEC for the state of Florida by paying for all of those subscribers twice. But they will pay the highest add rate to utilize F.S.U., Miami and Florida through ESPN.
Then there's content that the nation wants to watch. Brand vs Brand will be a point of emphasis for making additions along with controlling the Saturday advertising within regions and states.
I know where you logic lies, and it's circa 2010. It's a different ball game now and that's one reason things are on pause. There are many in the industry trying to agree on a new strategy moving forward. The Big 12 is the best remaining product not totally locked up by ESPN. But in Texas and Oklahoma only the Big 12 schools are not more completely under the ESPN thumb. Should Baylor and T.C.U. head to the AAC (where Houston, S.M.U., and Tulsa are already members) and should the SEC land Texa-homa that gives ESPN total control over a regional market comprised of 2 states with a potential of 32 million plus viewers and in a high rabid college sports market with extremely good saturation.
Now if those 6 schools are divided between the AAC/ACC/SEC it still works for ESPN. That's where they are going and why they want them. For the price of 6 schools, ESPN makes certain that 32 million people have to buy an ESPN package to watch. If they want Kansas too then make it 8 schools but the saturation numbers in Kansas are much lower.
What's more is that if the 5 state P schools of Texas and Oklahoma have games spread throughout the day the ESPN or the SECN or ACCN get to double and triple dip on the advertising every week for 32 million potential viewers. And if Baylor and T.C.U. wind up in the AAC then with S.M.U., Houston, and Tulsa you get to triple dip again just for a slightly reduced rate. That's 6 shots across a spectrum of channels in which advertisers can saturate the news about their product to a high % of the residents of the state of Texas and Oklahoma. And even if those schools initially don't care to watch Florida or Georgia we still get their dedication for the schools they do care about and that still pays the bills.
That's going to be part of the secret of making money moving forward and it is why the SEC is still in the best position to monetize it. We are in a growth area where the highest % of viewers watch college sports.....religiously. Even in a streaming world that's money in the bank. Monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma along with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas is major. Having ESPN hold all of the product in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky helps. Do that and the ESPN model still works. Don't and you're screwed.
BTW: That strategy could also help ESPN land all of the Big 10 contract someday. If Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Connecticut, Temple, and Cincinnati are accounted for under the umbrella of ESPN then Big 10 rates have no competitors that aren't in the corporate family and their rates go up too.
PS: Personally, I don't like Texas, don't like the idea of Kansas in the SEC, and find it much simpler to take the pair of Oklahoma schools and call it quits on realignment and let ESPN and the other conferences deal with the leftovers. We'd be fine. But there is a network angle to be considered. A conference angle to be considered, and the feelings of our individual member schools to be considered. With OU in hand should we ever be faced with the need to expand again I still say grab Clemson, Florida State and consider calling it a day. Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State are the most SEC like schools out there. None of the three would dilute our brand. But that's just me thinking as a fan.
I agree. OU and OSU is the best option for the SEC for western expansion. They also border three SEC states. I think the Red River Rivalry is important to OU, so they would have to work that out. Bedlam will be preserved. I believe Oklahoma will fit better than any of the other western schools. They would be an awesome boost for Missouri and Arkansas, and A&M, as well. I can only imagine the LSU-OU primetime games at Norman and Baton Rouge. This would cement the SEC as the greatest conference of all time. You are also correct that the old 2010 cable days are over. While Oklahoma is not the population center of the country, OU has an obvious national brand, and OSU brings a great program in the new age of streaming. We go to 16 and wait for the east to play itself out. I think a couple ACC schools might find the increase in conference revenue intriguing.
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2018 01:26 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
|
|