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
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1561
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.
06-08-2018 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1562
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech
06-08-2018 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1563
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech
Outside of OU & UT, and perhaps a school such as oSu or Kansas in a given situation, it may come down to that. Who lobbies the hardest. Who has the best professional contacts. Who poses the least resistance. Who has the best advocates. Who will be most flexible. Who really fits.

In that scenario, Kansas State has tried to develop good relations with the SEC.

During the last round of departures, Iowa State made some negative comments about playing the SEC and being critical of SEC scheduling. If Kansas has an attitude, as Texas does, that should matter in expansion decisions.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2018 05:54 PM by OdinFrigg.)
06-08-2018 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1564
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech

Why have Texas Tech so low? Honest question.
1) Beard has basketball up and running.
2) potential football powerhouse (Leach years)
3) imrpovement in academics recently

Is it just location/market?
06-08-2018 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1565
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 06:04 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech

Why have Texas Tech so low? Honest question.
1) Beard has basketball up and running.
2) potential football powerhouse (Leach years)
3) imrpovement in academics recently

Is it just location/market?

Yes. We would have the top two Texas schools in hand. New markets or the ability to fully maximize the 7 million in DFW would all take precedence.
06-08-2018 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1566
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 05:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 02:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Oklahoma State has steadily built competitive athletics over the years. Across the spectrum, most years, they would be a solid middle-of-the-pack program in the SEC.
Also, the SEC owning Bedlam would be nice. Further , having oSu, it would give OU competition in not being too dominant for recruits in that region.

I was hoping the SEC would, someday, land one of those North Carolina ACC schools. Having NC State would be fine. The ACC could be better off with one less in N.C. and add elsewhere, i. e. WVU, UConn, or perhaps Cincy.

I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech
Outside of OU & UT, and perhaps a school such as oSu or Kansas in a given situation, it may come down to that. Who lobbies the hardest. Who has the best professional contacts. Who poses the least resistance. Who has the best advocates. Who will be most flexible. Who really fits.

In that scenario, Kansas State has tried to develop good relations with the SEC.

During the last round of departures, Iowa State made some negative comments about playing the SEC and being critical of SEC scheduling. If Kansas has an attitude, as Texas does, that should matter in expansion decisions.

I have some friends who are KState graduates (on a professional academic track) and I have a soft spot for the Wildcats as well. But I'm afraid they are a bit far down the list to have a good shot. First of all we would never go to 18 out of the Big 12 unless Texas was coming in at #17. Second, the Horns are liable to insist upon Tech. If they didn't and if Kansas and Iowa State held out hopes for the Big 10, or PAC, I think our choice would come down to T.C.U. for a 7 games a year in DFW besides the RRR, or West Virginia and a new market and Kansas State if considered at all would be vying with T.C.U. and West Virginia.
06-08-2018 06:43 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: #1567
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
The way I view TCU is as an Achilles heel for the Big 12. Their vital organs are located elsewhere, but taking TCU could be the strike that brings everything else down.

I wouldn't mind leading with that.

Let's say the SEC struck first by taking TCU. This not only puts pressure on Texas, but on Oklahoma as well. OU would know at that point that the Big 12 could never replace the value that TCU brings and having the SEC with a direct presence in DFW is a threat to the entire conference.

Texas would also know at that point that the SEC would be in their backyard to a degree that could not be mitigated.

So one of two things happens:

1) You end up pitting OU and UT against each other to find out which one wants into the SEC more. Perhaps Texas agrees to come by themselves and we could just settle at 16.

2) Oklahoma leadership goes to Austin and says it's time to give up the ghost. Perhaps then they organize a broader move to the SEC for the both of them.
06-08-2018 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1568
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-08-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 06:04 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I heard someone say that the ideal pair for the conference back in 2010 would have been North Carolina and Oklahoma. While I understood the brand implications of that suggestion I dismissed it because it seemed impractical since UNC isn't going anywhere. I also didn't think that adding one to the East and one to the West would solve some of our logistical issues.

That said the logic behind N.C. State and Virginia Tech was pretty obvious, particularly under the market footprint model. And quite frankly the ACC dropping down to 12 really opens some possible vistas for them to add significant branding and markets.

Practically, the Big 12 will be the only game for awhile and likely the only game for the duration should the ACCN prove profitable enough. Oklahoma is certainly not my overall preference, but acquiring at least one of Texas and Oklahoma seems to me to be the best possible offensive and defensive move as it guarantees that noone will really overtake our content and branding valuation so therefore it locks us into the advantaged position we now enjoy. If Texas doesn't come with the Sooners I really don't think there's much difference in the rest of the possible travel mates so if the Sooners are more likely to be favorable with OSU then so be it.

I just really anticipate that if those two seriously pursue SEC invitations that Texas is going to go defensive and may likely try to Horn in, pun intended. If so would we take them? And if so who with?

If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech

Why have Texas Tech so low? Honest question.
1) Beard has basketball up and running.
2) potential football powerhouse (Leach years)
3) imrpovement in academics recently

Is it just location/market?

Yes. We would have the top two Texas schools in hand. New markets or the ability to fully maximize the 7 million in DFW would all take precedence.

Thanks. Follow up: I
Without Texas itself, it sounds like you'd still value TCU and the DFW market, but would Tech bring any value to the SEC?

To clarify. I'm not trying to take up Techs case, I would much rather stop at 16, or grab Iowa State/Kansas, or wait for Clemson/UNC/Virginia Tech types.

I am in general low on WVU but I recognize their value even in a small state.
06-09-2018 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1569
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 08:45 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 06:04 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-08-2018 03:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If the Big 12 cracks then I think we should take any school that has a good sized fan base.

Kansas, West Virginia, Texas Tech, maybe Iowa State...I think any of them will add value as we become less dependent on cable and satellite for distribution. I'd even throw TCU in there because they could make for a very interesting content addition if they can maintain their momentum.

It is kind of a "pick em" situation. But if forced to prioritize them I'd say (1) Kansas as an AAU and a historic basketball brand. (2) West Virginia for a reach into a bit of the Beltway and to create even more of a bridge to Virginia Tech should the opportunity ever arise. (3) T.C.U. simply to max out 7 million potential viewers with 6 schools they cared about every week (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and T.C.U. with the Frogs giving us at least 7 games in DFW a year in addition to the RRR. (4) Iowa State an AAU school in a state of 3.3 million., (5) Texas Tech

Why have Texas Tech so low? Honest question.
1) Beard has basketball up and running.
2) potential football powerhouse (Leach years)
3) imrpovement in academics recently

Is it just location/market?

Yes. We would have the top two Texas schools in hand. New markets or the ability to fully maximize the 7 million in DFW would all take precedence.

Thanks. Follow up: I
Without Texas itself, it sounds like you'd still value TCU and the DFW market, but would Tech bring any value to the SEC?

To clarify. I'm not trying to take up Techs case, I would much rather stop at 16, or grab Iowa State/Kansas, or wait for Clemson/UNC/Virginia Tech types.

I am in general low on WVU but I recognize their value even in a small state.

The problem for the SEC is that with Texas and A&M there is nothing Tech can offer us that we wouldn't already have. Their strongest concentration of alumni live in DFW where adding T.C.U. would accomplish a lot more. At that point the only way we take Tech is Texas insisted upon it and if we have already taken Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (which was the premise here that only then would Texas show interest in the SEC) taking a new market or key brand then makes sense. Kansas is that brand and provides Missouri with it's old rival. But, Kansas as a state has a tad fewer than 3 million. Of course West Virginia is down the list here but as a new state they would be ahead of Texas Tech and possibly T.C.U.

Iowa State is really an outlier for the SEC. It is only contiguous with Missouri and way far North. Kansas State is the 2nd brand in a small state.

I'd say that if we had to add an 18th to go with Texas that Kansas would be the ideal choice from the remaining schools.
06-09-2018 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1570
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.
06-09-2018 12:31 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: #1571
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

I agree with most of this.

On TCU, their strength is their commitment to major athletics. They don't have much else in their arsenal to promote their school because it's not a state institution and there are already bigger brands in the same market.

What they've been able to build though with few resources is quite amazing. They went from mid-major to 3rd in the Big 12 in overall revenue within a few short years. No doubt that their affiliation with Big 12 schools helped their brand, but I have little doubt that an affiliation with the SEC would accomplish much the same thing and most likely increase their revenue again.

Their presence in DFW is the real attraction though. They have easy access to big time athletes, but they are also the only Power 5 brand in a major media market. Anyone TCU has a relationship with will become a topic of attention for DFW media and that's exposure that's hard to buy. If either OU or UT were a part of that equation then the SEC would essentially own the DFW market...a metro area similar in size to Atlanta.
06-09-2018 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1572
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

So you seem to be saying Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 16 and if Texas wants in Kansas State to 18.

T.C.U. and Texas Tech could head to the PAC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC while Baylor is out.

Am I reading you correctly?
06-09-2018 07:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1573
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 01:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

I agree with most of this.

On TCU, their strength is their commitment to major athletics. They don't have much else in their arsenal to promote their school because it's not a state institution and there are already bigger brands in the same market.

What they've been able to build though with few resources is quite amazing. They went from mid-major to 3rd in the Big 12 in overall revenue within a few short years. No doubt that their affiliation with Big 12 schools helped their brand, but I have little doubt that an affiliation with the SEC would accomplish much the same thing and most likely increase their revenue again.

Their presence in DFW is the real attraction though. They have easy access to big time athletes, but they are also the only Power 5 brand in a major media market. Anyone TCU has a relationship with will become a topic of attention for DFW media and that's exposure that's hard to buy. If either OU or UT were a part of that equation then the SEC would essentially own the DFW market...a metro area similar in size to Atlanta.

Well let's take a look at what some of these scenarios might look like:

At 16 it's pretty clear that we would likely be adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State or optimally Oklahoma and Texas so I won't list those. But assuming that once OU and OSU have agreed to come should Texas want in also what kind of foursome do we want:

A:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

B:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

C:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Kansas State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

D:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt



I would argue that (B) would provide the best natural division into to two divisions.

If we moved to 3 divisions of 6 it wouldn't matter so much in adding 3 to the West and 1 to the East.
06-09-2018 09:45 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: #1574
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

So you seem to be saying Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 16 and if Texas wants in Kansas State to 18.

T.C.U. and Texas Tech could head to the PAC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC while Baylor is out.

Am I reading you correctly?

We could do a lot worse.
06-09-2018 11:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1575
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

So you seem to be saying Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 16 and if Texas wants in Kansas State to 18.

T.C.U. and Texas Tech could head to the PAC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC while Baylor is out.

Am I reading you correctly?

We could do a lot worse.

Well Kansas State in the SEC should become "the" football school in Kansas. I agree we could do worse. But we could also do better. But really any of the 18 school scenarios I laid out above would be acceptable.

What would be ideal is for Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Oklahoma State to head to the PAC to take them to 16. The Big 10 bites the bullet and takes the only two AAU schools left and adds Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC takes West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame and the SEC moves to 16 with the Sooners and Horns.

The second best option is for us to move to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and any of West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U., or even Texas Tech.

Then the next best option is OU and OSU to 16.
06-09-2018 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1576
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
The SEC and B1G are the top tier but the SEC has the edge on geography. The PAC and ACC are second tier and would likely need to make a sweetheart deal for the XII jewels.
06-10-2018 12:28 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: #1577
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-09-2018 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

So you seem to be saying Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 16 and if Texas wants in Kansas State to 18.

T.C.U. and Texas Tech could head to the PAC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC while Baylor is out.

Am I reading you correctly?

We could do a lot worse.

Well Kansas State in the SEC should become "the" football school in Kansas. I agree we could do worse. But we could also do better. But really any of the 18 school scenarios I laid out above would be acceptable.

What would be ideal is for Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Oklahoma State to head to the PAC to take them to 16. The Big 10 bites the bullet and takes the only two AAU schools left and adds Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC takes West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame and the SEC moves to 16 with the Sooners and Horns.

The second best option is for us to move to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and any of West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U., or even Texas Tech.

Then the next best option is OU and OSU to 16.

If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.
06-10-2018 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1578
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-10-2018 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 12:31 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas Tech is pretty far west and is considerable added travel. Pac12 needs to have an eye on them, with or without UT.

WVU would be the only B12 school that offers the SEC something east/northeast crossroad/midatlantic outskirts. WVU would offer better value to the ACC.

Baylor, just no.

TCU. Perceived value gets overstated IMO. Depends on where others go. When they go on decline, their size may not be enough of a boost during a sustained slump.

Iowa State. Well beyond south and border state region. Not an exciting destination. Another travel strain. In BIG footprint.

Texas. SEC makes the most sense. But a lot of attitudinal
divide and conflicting goals.

Kansas State. Another out-of-footprint consideration below the radar. Would Mizzou favor them? It would be tough for KSU to find placement in a P4.

Kansas. BIG the better fit. Awful fb.

Oklahoma State. Would fit in the SEC with or without OU. Athletically, they may blend very well.

Oklahoma. There appears no downside to adding OU. oSu with them has some clear, positive factors.

So you seem to be saying Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 16 and if Texas wants in Kansas State to 18.

T.C.U. and Texas Tech could head to the PAC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC while Baylor is out.

Am I reading you correctly?

We could do a lot worse.

Well Kansas State in the SEC should become "the" football school in Kansas. I agree we could do worse. But we could also do better. But really any of the 18 school scenarios I laid out above would be acceptable.

What would be ideal is for Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Oklahoma State to head to the PAC to take them to 16. The Big 10 bites the bullet and takes the only two AAU schools left and adds Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC takes West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame and the SEC moves to 16 with the Sooners and Horns.

The second best option is for us to move to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and any of West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U., or even Texas Tech.

Then the next best option is OU and OSU to 16.

If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.

In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.
06-10-2018 02:39 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: #1579
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-10-2018 02:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So you seem to be saying Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to 16 and if Texas wants in Kansas State to 18.

T.C.U. and Texas Tech could head to the PAC, Iowa State and Kansas to the Big 10, and West Virginia to the ACC while Baylor is out.

Am I reading you correctly?

We could do a lot worse.

Well Kansas State in the SEC should become "the" football school in Kansas. I agree we could do worse. But we could also do better. But really any of the 18 school scenarios I laid out above would be acceptable.

What would be ideal is for Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Oklahoma State to head to the PAC to take them to 16. The Big 10 bites the bullet and takes the only two AAU schools left and adds Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC takes West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame and the SEC moves to 16 with the Sooners and Horns.

The second best option is for us to move to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and any of West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U., or even Texas Tech.

Then the next best option is OU and OSU to 16.

If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.

In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.

If Oklahoma State is the price for getting the wheels moving then there's really no reason not to take them. They're a decent brand and they would fit well. The streaming model would actually increase their value as the specific market doesn't matter as much. I have no issue with OSU if it's politically necessary.

Kansas does have greater brand value of any potential 4th. I think ESPN wants to keep them in the fold anyway so my theory has been the network would attempt to push UT, OU, OSU, and KU into the SEC.

The only snag I see is timing. If we need the cooperation of other leagues to get what we want then I wouldn't bet on an amicable separation of the Big 12.

Of course, we could just wait until the GOR is up to attempt any moves. I actually think our only other option would be to absorb the entire league.
06-10-2018 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,891
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1580
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(06-10-2018 10:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 02:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  We could do a lot worse.

Well Kansas State in the SEC should become "the" football school in Kansas. I agree we could do worse. But we could also do better. But really any of the 18 school scenarios I laid out above would be acceptable.

What would be ideal is for Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Oklahoma State to head to the PAC to take them to 16. The Big 10 bites the bullet and takes the only two AAU schools left and adds Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC takes West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame and the SEC moves to 16 with the Sooners and Horns.

The second best option is for us to move to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and any of West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U., or even Texas Tech.

Then the next best option is OU and OSU to 16.

If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.

In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.

If Oklahoma State is the price for getting the wheels moving then there's really no reason not to take them. They're a decent brand and they would fit well. The streaming model would actually increase their value as the specific market doesn't matter as much. I have no issue with OSU if it's politically necessary.

Kansas does have greater brand value of any potential 4th. I think ESPN wants to keep them in the fold anyway so my theory has been the network would attempt to push UT, OU, OSU, and KU into the SEC.

The only snag I see is timing. If we need the cooperation of other leagues to get what we want then I wouldn't bet on an amicable separation of the Big 12.

Of course, we could just wait until the GOR is up to attempt any moves. I actually think our only other option would be to absorb the entire league.

I think if the pair of Oklahoma schools have a way out in 2023-4 that they take it. They give a one year's notice and the money the conference withholds becomes their buyout. If Texas wants out at that point then they could either leave the same way along with the 4th, or they could wait a year and then move with the 4th without having any revenue withheld.

If they come sooner than at the end of 2023-4 then yeah the network is going to have to promise at least 8 of them homes. They vote to disband the conference (8 votes) and that voids the GOR which can also be waived by the networks.
06-10-2018 09:24 PM
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.