.......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a hole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

Thoughts?

1. By "accomplishing" (1), Texas would effectively be admitting that it did not currently have that status. Which is IMO the biggest reason that I don't see Texas as SEC-bound.

but its a fascinating scenario

8. If those Lone Star recruiting grounds are so crucial... then look for UH (Okla's preference) or Rice (a compromise possibly more palatable to B1G) to tag along with OU.

just spitballing...

(07-05-2018 10:36 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

Thoughts?

1. By "accomplishing" (1), Texas would effectively be admitting that it did not currently have that status. Which is IMO the biggest reason that I don't see Texas as SEC-bound.

but its a fascinating scenario

8. If those Lone Star recruiting grounds are so crucial... then look for UH (Okla's preference) or Rice (a compromise possibly more palatable to B1G) to tag along with OU.

just spitballing...

Rice has the academic chops and research credentials. Houston is a 50% subsidy case. I'd say Rice might be the pick in this scenario. But I still don't think the Horns would feel threatened by this. And don't overlook the "piss off the Aggies" selling point to their fans.

(07-05-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:36 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

Thoughts?

1. By "accomplishing" (1), Texas would effectively be admitting that it did not currently have that status. Which is IMO the biggest reason that I don't see Texas as SEC-bound.

but its a fascinating scenario

8. If those Lone Star recruiting grounds are so crucial... then look for UH (Okla's preference) or Rice (a compromise possibly more palatable to B1G) to tag along with OU.

just spitballing...

Rice has the academic chops and research credentials. Houston is a 50% subsidy case. I'd say Rice might be the pick in this scenario. But I still don't think the Horns would feel threatened by this. And don't overlook the "piss off the Aggies" selling point to their fans.

Rice has zero fanbase. Zilch. Nada. Houston is not hrthat bad, but still has room for improvement to be a serious P5 consideration.

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

Since we have Missouri as a member, Kansas would make sense as a member. Adding the remaining major brands of the Big 12—Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—would be valuable to our conference too.

(07-06-2018 12:48 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:36 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

Thoughts?

1. By "accomplishing" (1), Texas would effectively be admitting that it did not currently have that status. Which is IMO the biggest reason that I don't see Texas as SEC-bound.

but its a fascinating scenario

8. If those Lone Star recruiting grounds are so crucial... then look for UH (Okla's preference) or Rice (a compromise possibly more palatable to B1G) to tag along with OU.

just spitballing...

Rice has the academic chops and research credentials. Houston is a 50% subsidy case. I'd say Rice might be the pick in this scenario. But I still don't think the Horns would feel threatened by this. And don't overlook the "piss off the Aggies" selling point to their fans.

Rice has zero fanbase. Zilch. Nada. Houston is not hrthat bad, but still has room for improvement to be a serious P5 consideration.

Well his scenario was Rice or Houston to the Big 10. Houston would be a non starter for the B1G. At least Rice is AAU. Other than that I agree with you.

(07-06-2018 12:52 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

Since we have Missouri as a member, Kansas would make sense as a member. Adding the remaining major brands of the Big 12—Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia—would be valuable to our conference too.

You know I don't have a problem with going to 18. But if we were forced to take 16 who would you rather have Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, or Texas/Kansas? I just thought the angles of that duo were fairly compelling both for the SEC and for Texas should they ever need a reason to consider the move, the leg up on everyone factor could be a convenient excuse for the reversal of their stated positions.

The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though...

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

Congratulations! You've posted the most intriguing scenario (and you've posted out many) of realignment scenarios here so far.

What's intriguing about it is that it would test the theory from many Big Ten heads that Missouri and Kansas aren't needed to access the St. Louis and Kansas City markets as long as Nebraska and Illinois are members. To me, I always found that explanation baffling. Yes, Nebraska fans are found in many plains states, so it makes sense that the Big Ten would have the mind share of Nebraska fans in the places I've mentioned. With that said it's arrogant to assume that you could have a market by having a program in a neighboring state. Then again, this attitude isn't new to Big Ten fans. Many still internally believe that Penn State was all they needed for the New York market, until the Big Ten Conference decided that it was no longer enough, which has peeved so many traditionalist fans ever since.

My opinion is that having Kansas and Missouri both in would give the SEC effective majority of the mind share in the Kansas City market. Lawrence is nearby and Columbia is down the road. Meanwhile, Lincoln is in the middle of a corn field. UNL is already connected to Chicago, regardless. So it's not that big of a deal.

Oklahoma's situation would be interesting, though. Not only would they be separated from UT but also from most of the former Big 8 members except for UNL. No Buffaloes. No Jayhawks. No Tigers. I'm assuming the Big Ten would reshuffle the conference schedules so that OU would play the football powers more, as a way of easing them in.

End of year rivalries would be straight forward: 'Hawks-'Clones; Sooners-Huskers; Gophers-Badgers; Wildcats-Illini; Boilers-Hoosiers; Spartans-Lions; Bucks-Wolverines; Turtles-Knights

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

That is the most selfish, cutthroat, elitist thing I've ever heard of... Sounds like something Texas would go for.

I also like the side effects:
- B1G gets a major brand but no new recruiting territory. They think they win, but they don't.
- ACC ends up with Notre Dame and WVU; best outcome for ESPN, IMO.

PLAUSIBLE

If conferences only go to 16, then Texas/Kansas to the Big 10 still accomplishes 1,4-7, and 9-12, though in that scenario the SEC could still take OK and one of OK State/WVU/TCU.

But Texas to the Big 10 loses out on some recruiting grounds and is disconnected from the south.

Point being, OK moving first to force Texas' hand makes alot of sense in this scenario too.

It may be that the SEC announcing it's intent to expand by 2 brings in the best options.

By announcing and by limiting space available, we force other schools hands to make the best case for acceptance.

(07-06-2018 04:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though...

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

I consider it a minor factor of interest, but as to your recollection of how long this may have been in the works, let's go back to the 2010-2 era. It was after the loss of A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri that the new T3 contract extensions were either made or extended (with the exception of the LHN which helped to pry A&M loose as it came before). ESPN held the T3 of just two schools (Kansas and Texas) and FOX held that of Oklahoma. Hmm? Probably a coincidence, but maybe not.

Anyway the pushing of this thought put one of my old assumptions to rest. For a long time I thought that this particular move would require Texas refusing to move with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refusing to come to the SEC without Oklahoma State. So if Texas really wanted a reunion with former rivals in the SEC that the SEC would refuse OSU and force OU to head to the Big 10 with Kansas. Then Texas and Tech would join the SEC. The reason being that Texas would want assurances that if they were to gain much of the leverage over former conference mates they would want to make sure first that OU couldn't tag along. It would make it look like OU crawled out on their own limb and it broke on them and then Tech would be the cover Texas needed to move.

Well if you replace Tech with Kansas I think the opposite strategy must be employed. I think Texas and Kansas would be announced as a pair first. This would leave the Big 10 rushing to lock up Oklahoma and leave Iowa State as the most likely pairing.

This would also in many ways be the favorable approach for the networks. Why?

If Texas moves first with Kansas it really puts the pressure on Oklahoma to accept the Big 10, it really opens the door for Iowa State to land a logical destination, and for the ACC to end their quibbling and take West Virginia. Now all 3 AAU's and the top 4 brands are off the table. So if the PAC wants help from the networks for carriage (and they do) then Kansas State, Oklahoma State (which helps OU separate), T.C.U. and Texas Tech all make sense even if they don't fit the academic plans of the PAC.

The PACN gets network support (and it doesn't really matter which network) but they also get 3 states, with penetration in the largest one, and 4 CTZ slots for marketing. KState isn't a bad academic school and Tech has made strides. T.C.U. and OSU give them deep enough penetration along with Tech in the DFW market to make it effective.

If the PAC doesn't go for it then at least OU is out.

ESPN rolls the LHN into the SEC West channel. Charlotte becomes the SEC East channel. Texas anchors the West with A&M, L.S.U, Arkansas, and hopefully a reconnected Missouri as competitors along with the Mississippi schools. Kansas becomes their Kentucky.

Alabama anchors the East with Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina mounting the charges and in a slightly tougher division Vanderbilt helps and Kentucky plays the role of perennial basketball King.

The two divisions, and their market profiles become essentially twins of one another in a recipe designed to protect the status of Kansas and Kentucky in hoops and Texas and Alabama as national brands with both being highly competitive for football. In effect it doubles the successful recipe that ESPN and the SEC have carefully crafted and it essentially doubles the T1, T2, and T3 product.

(07-06-2018 05:04 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 10:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  .......really wanted to take advantages over all of their rivals and did so by making a move like this.

Texas joins the SEC without Tech and with Kansas.

What it would do:

1. Texas gains equal brand status with A&M.

2. Texas relegates Oklahoma to the Big 10.

3. Texas relegates Oklahoma State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

4. Texas relegtes Texas Tech at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

5. Texas definitely relegates Baylor to the G5.

6. Texas relegates T.C.U. at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

7. Texas relegates Kansas State at best to the PAC and at worst to the G5.

8. Texas forces the Big 10 to seriously consider Iowa State as Oklahoma's partner in moving to the Big 10 which further isolates their rival away from Texas recruiting.

9. Texas forces West Virginia at best into the ACC and at worst into the G5.

10. What this does is reestablish in spades Texas dominance over all former Big 12 members and only elevates the weakest football product, Kansas.

11. Texas regains old rivals Arkansas, and Texas A&M and keeps Oklahoma as an OOC game in DFW. They renew an annual game with Missouri and they gain new regional foes with L.S.U. Mississippi State and Mississippi, all relatively easy to travel to. And they still have 2 OOC games with which to schedule other Texas schools.

12. Texas forces us into a P4 and likely a champs only format which means Notre Dame will have to join the ACC in full to be eligible. So this arrangement profits the ACC and ESPN by doing so.


West Division:

Arkansas, Kansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M


What it does for the SEC:

1. The end of season conference divisional rivalries end like this:
Texas/Texas A&M, Ole Miss/Miss St, Missouri/Kansas, Arkansas/L.S.U. and classic annual divisional games become Texas/Arkansas, Texas/L.S.U., A&M/LS.U..

That's a huge bonanza for just the Western Division and it would contain the same quality of year end games or more than what the Eastern division already has.

How it Impacts other conferences:

Iowa State & Oklahoma to the Big 10. They get a prize and a regional AAU school with a solid following.

West Virginia to the ACC. It gives them content in all money sports and fills a whole in their footprint. There will need to be a battery ban in Morgantown and all urine tossers need to lose their ticket privileges forever but it would be a good addition for their network content value.

The PAC can play snooty or get help with distribution and carriage by selling part interest in their network. And if they do adding CTZ schools is still in their best interest. Texas Tech is a natural bride and T.C.U. in DFW is too large a market to bypass. Toss in KState and OSU and everyone except Baylor may yet come out a winner.

I've never been a fan of Kansas in the SEC but they would become the Vanderbilt of the Western Division which would be useful in its own right, but they bring Kentucky level basektball gravitas and another AAU school in a new state.

The only duplicate for the SEC is the top content school in the nation that we can get (considering that Ohio State may not wish to join the SEC).

What has sold me on this notion are the last week end series of the regular season in the Western Division. Those games are massive content games. Even Missouri/Kansas probably edges out Tennessee/Vanderbilt.

Now the Eastern Division ends this way:
Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Georgia Tech, South Carolina/Clemson, Tennessee/Vanderbilt, Florida/Florida State, and Kentucky/Louisville.

The SEC absolutely mops up the ratings on that weekend.

So in looking at those pairings I have to say I like it better than what the pairing of Oklahoma/Oklahoma State would bring us.

Thoughts?

Congratulations! You've posted the most intriguing scenario (and you've posted out many) of realignment scenarios here so far.

What's intriguing about it is that it would test the theory from many Big Ten heads that Missouri and Kansas aren't needed to access the St. Louis and Kansas City markets as long as Nebraska and Illinois are members. To me, I always found that explanation baffling. Yes, Nebraska fans are found in many plains states, so it makes sense that the Big Ten would have the mind share of Nebraska fans in the places I've mentioned. With that said it's arrogant to assume that you could have a market by having a program in a neighboring state. Then again, this attitude isn't new to Big Ten fans. Many still internally believe that Penn State was all they needed for the New York market, until the Big Ten Conference decided that it was no longer enough, which has peeved so many traditionalist fans ever since.

My opinion is that having Kansas and Missouri both in would give the SEC effective majority of the mind share in the Kansas City market. Lawrence is nearby and Columbia is down the road. Meanwhile, Lincoln is in the middle of a corn field. UNL is already connected to Chicago, regardless. So it's not that big of a deal.

Oklahoma's situation would be interesting, though. Not only would they be separated from UT but also from most of the former Big 8 members except for UNL. No Buffaloes. No Jayhawks. No Tigers. I'm assuming the Big Ten would reshuffle the conference schedules so that OU would play the football powers more, as a way of easing them in.

End of year rivalries would be straight forward: 'Hawks-'Clones; Sooners-Huskers; Gophers-Badgers; Wildcats-Illini; Boilers-Hoosiers; Spartans-Lions; Bucks-Wolverines; Turtles-Knights

Another esoteric point is that it settles neatly the expansion to the West of the SEC and Big 10 without killing of an AAU program like Iowa. You preserve and internally contain all season ending rivalries and let the lesser programs go.

With these kinds of moves by the SEC and Big 10 their thinking about their Westward expansion is over for good. Then if either is to grow again there could only be one source and the targets within that one might not be quite so contentious between us as some might think. And if it never happened we are both well buffered from each other's interests.

(07-06-2018 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 04:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though...

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

I consider it a minor factor of interest, but as to your recollection of how long this may have been in the works, let's go back to the 2010-2 era. It was after the loss of A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri that the new T3 contract extensions were either made or extended (with the exception of the LHN which helped to pry A&M loose as it came before). ESPN held the T3 of just two schools (Kansas and Texas) and FOX held that of Oklahoma. Hmm? Probably a coincidence, but maybe not.

Anyway the pushing of this thought put one of my old assumptions to rest. For a long time I thought that this particular move would require Texas refusing to move with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refusing to come to the SEC without Oklahoma. So if Texas really wanted a reunion with former rivals in the SEC that the SEC would refuse OSU and force OU to head to the Big 10 with Kansas. Then Texas and Tech would join the SEC. The reason being that Texas would want assurances that if they were to gain much of the leverage over former conference mates they would want to make sure first that OU couldn't tag along. It would make it look like OU crawled out on their own limb and it broke on them and then Tech would be the cover Texas needed to move.

Well if you replace Tech with Kansas I think the opposite strategy must be employed. I think Texas and Kansas would be announced as a pair first. This would leave the Big 10 rushing to lock up Oklahoma and leave Iowa State as the most likely pairing.

This would also in many ways be the favorable approach for the networks. Why?

If Texas moves first with Kansas it really puts the pressure on Oklahoma to accept the Big 10, it really opens the door for Iowa State to land a logical destination, and for the ACC to end their quibbling and take West Virginia. Now all 3 AAU's and the top 4 brands are off the table. So if the PAC wants help from the networks for carriage (and they do) then Kansas State, Oklahoma State (which helps OU separate), T.C.U. and Texas Tech all make sense even if they don't fit the academic plans of the PAC.

The PACN gets network support (and it doesn't really matter which network) but they also get 3 states, with penetration in the largest one, and 4 CTZ slots for marketing. KState isn't a bad academic school and Tech has made strides. T.C.U. and OSU give them deep enough penetration along with Tech in the DFW market to make it effective.

If the PAC doesn't go for it then at least OU is out.

ESPN rolls the LHN into the SEC West channel. Charlotte becomes the SEC East channel. Texas anchors the West with A&M, L.S.U, Arkansas, and hopefully a reconnected Missouri as competitors along with the Mississippi schools. Kansas becomes their Kentucky.

Alabama anchors the East with Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina mounting the charges and in a slightly tougher division Vanderbilt helps and Kentucky plays the role of perennial basketball King.

The two divisions, and their market profiles become essentially twins of one another in a recipe designed to protect the status of Kansas and Kentucky in hoops and Texas and Alabama as national brands with both being highly competitive for football. In effect it doubles the successful recipe that ESPN and the SEC have carefully crafted and it essentially doubles the T1, T2, and T3 product.

My only disagreement would be that I don't think the LHN would become a home for SEC West content. If you regionalize individual channels then you run the risk of markets outside the region not being invested in the content and therefore not paying for it. This hasn't been ESPN's M.O. They attempt to take ever linear network to a national market even if negotiations might be a little more regional from a practical perspective. This guarantees the most bang for the buck.

I'm partial to turning the channel into a Spanish version of the SEC Network. That way it could be distributed domestically or internationally. But I have no idea if that's in their thought process.

(07-06-2018 02:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 04:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though...

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

I consider it a minor factor of interest, but as to your recollection of how long this may have been in the works, let's go back to the 2010-2 era. It was after the loss of A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri that the new T3 contract extensions were either made or extended (with the exception of the LHN which helped to pry A&M loose as it came before). ESPN held the T3 of just two schools (Kansas and Texas) and FOX held that of Oklahoma. Hmm? Probably a coincidence, but maybe not.

Anyway the pushing of this thought put one of my old assumptions to rest. For a long time I thought that this particular move would require Texas refusing to move with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refusing to come to the SEC without Oklahoma. So if Texas really wanted a reunion with former rivals in the SEC that the SEC would refuse OSU and force OU to head to the Big 10 with Kansas. Then Texas and Tech would join the SEC. The reason being that Texas would want assurances that if they were to gain much of the leverage over former conference mates they would want to make sure first that OU couldn't tag along. It would make it look like OU crawled out on their own limb and it broke on them and then Tech would be the cover Texas needed to move.

Well if you replace Tech with Kansas I think the opposite strategy must be employed. I think Texas and Kansas would be announced as a pair first. This would leave the Big 10 rushing to lock up Oklahoma and leave Iowa State as the most likely pairing.

This would also in many ways be the favorable approach for the networks. Why?

If Texas moves first with Kansas it really puts the pressure on Oklahoma to accept the Big 10, it really opens the door for Iowa State to land a logical destination, and for the ACC to end their quibbling and take West Virginia. Now all 3 AAU's and the top 4 brands are off the table. So if the PAC wants help from the networks for carriage (and they do) then Kansas State, Oklahoma State (which helps OU separate), T.C.U. and Texas Tech all make sense even if they don't fit the academic plans of the PAC.

The PACN gets network support (and it doesn't really matter which network) but they also get 3 states, with penetration in the largest one, and 4 CTZ slots for marketing. KState isn't a bad academic school and Tech has made strides. T.C.U. and OSU give them deep enough penetration along with Tech in the DFW market to make it effective.

If the PAC doesn't go for it then at least OU is out.

ESPN rolls the LHN into the SEC West channel. Charlotte becomes the SEC East channel. Texas anchors the West with A&M, L.S.U, Arkansas, and hopefully a reconnected Missouri as competitors along with the Mississippi schools. Kansas becomes their Kentucky.

Alabama anchors the East with Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina mounting the charges and in a slightly tougher division Vanderbilt helps and Kentucky plays the role of perennial basketball King.

The two divisions, and their market profiles become essentially twins of one another in a recipe designed to protect the status of Kansas and Kentucky in hoops and Texas and Alabama as national brands with both being highly competitive for football. In effect it doubles the successful recipe that ESPN and the SEC have carefully crafted and it essentially doubles the T1, T2, and T3 product.

My only disagreement would be that I don't think the LHN would become a home for SEC West content. If you regionalize individual channels then you run the risk of markets outside the region not being invested in the content and therefore not paying for it. This hasn't been ESPN's M.O. They attempt to take ever linear network to a national market even if negotiations might be a little more regional from a practical perspective. This guarantees the most bang for the buck.

I'm partial to turning the channel into a Spanish version of the SEC Network. That way it could be distributed domestically or internationally. But I have no idea if that's in their thought process.

The SECN currently owns 3 channel locations. The main SECN channel and two overflow channels the third of which I don't think has yet been used. The LHN being converted into Spanish is fine. My point was that you can really intensify your product by putting the West on one channel and the East on the other for games. They can share talk shows and news, etc. They wouldn't be available separately. They would be two halves of one whole. I would think that more people would subscribe if there was more of their school on the network. Doubling the time slots would do that.

Would a Texas/Kansas combination acceptance possibly "force" Oklahoma into the SEC rather than being an "outpost" in the B1G (assuming a B1G offer to them)? Would the SEC be willing to move to 18 to accommodate OU and one other (possibly WVa or OSU) IF (and that I believe it is a BIG if) Texas/.Kansas went SEC? And, IF KU was offered BOTH the B1G & SEC, would they choose the SEC over the B1G...and why (may depend on who they would be going with to where)?

(07-06-2018 03:12 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Would a Texas/Kansas combination acceptance possibly "force" Oklahoma into the SEC rather than being an "outpost" in the B1G (assuming a B1G offer to them)? Would the SEC be willing to move to 18 to accommodate OU and one other (possibly WVa or OSU) IF (and that I believe it is a BIG if) Texas/.Kansas went SEC? And, IF KU was offered BOTH the B1G & SEC, who would they choose...and why (may depend on who they would be going with to where)?

I think that depends on Texas's motives. There would be much to the scenario as presented that would be Horn friendly. One question that comes to mind is whether Kansas basketball, as a brand, is worth more to the Big 10, or to the SEC? A follow up question might be how special would Kansas basketball be in a deep and above average Big 10? How much would their special elite status be worth with a natural elite rival like Kentucky to the SEC? I'm saying there are easy answers there because there are not. But KU/UK would be as iconic and elite as UNC/Duke the only thing they would lack is that cross town feel to the rivalry.

But to answer your question it very well could force OU into asking in. I guess my answer would be how much would Texas actually want them in house when Texas gains so much advantage by keeping them at arms length?

An SEC with Texas and A&M doesn't need OU's market reach. Their brand would be great to have, but we would own DFW and therefore OU's worth to us is simply their national brand and content plus a small state. I think the only way OSU is worth taking for us is if we can't land Texas because then we would need them to get Oklahoma and the share of DFW we want. With Texas the only added value for Oklahoma becomes their brand and content, but not worth enough to justify OSU. So at that point if we had UT & KU in hand and OU wanted in then WVU would be a reasonable next step, or dare I say it, ISU.

With WVU we get a better sports package. But with ISU the SEC acquires 3 new AAU members and 3 national brands.

But for ESPN that fails to accomplish some of its goals. They want Notre Dame all in. They want smaller conferences to keep us from gaining too much leverage. They want access to Texas football and Kansas basketball.

If the Big 10 did take OU and ISU and moved to 16 and the SEC did take UT & KU securing 2/3rds of ESPN's objectives, then it is only logical for W.V.U.to head to the ACC and for N.D. to agree to that slot. Why? They want New England and New York exposure. Pitt, B.C., and Syracuse give them that. They want academic exposure. Virginia, North Carolina and Duke give them that. They want Southern recruiting exposure. Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State and Miami give them that.

They can't find that combination in any other conference. A Big 10 with Oklahoma become a financial behemoth as does a SEC with Texas. The best way for N.D. to hang onto what they want outside of independence is to go all in to once again stabilize the ACC, and it would. WVU gives them added depth in the Big 3 sports and ultimately this forces a champs only P4 model for the CFP.

If OU heads to the SEC after the SEC has picked up UT and KU then it destabilizes the Big 10 and almost forces them to try to poach the ACC in which case it could cost ESPN not only N.D. eventually but the Carolina and Virginia markets as well if there were to be an all out Big 10 push with FOX money.

By sacrificing Oklahoma to the Big 10 and landing N.D. ESPN gets virtually everything they want without destabilizing the balance in the East.

(07-06-2018 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 04:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though...

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

I consider it a minor factor of interest, but as to your recollection of how long this may have been in the works, let's go back to the 2010-2 era. It was after the loss of A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri that the new T3 contract extensions were either made or extended (with the exception of the LHN which helped to pry A&M loose as it came before). ESPN held the T3 of just two schools (Kansas and Texas) and FOX held that of Oklahoma. Hmm? Probably a coincidence, but maybe not.

Anyway the pushing of this thought put one of my old assumptions to rest. For a long time I thought that this particular move would require Texas refusing to move with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refusing to come to the SEC without Oklahoma. So if Texas really wanted a reunion with former rivals in the SEC that the SEC would refuse OSU and force OU to head to the Big 10 with Kansas. Then Texas and Tech would join the SEC. The reason being that Texas would want assurances that if they were to gain much of the leverage over former conference mates they would want to make sure first that OU couldn't tag along. It would make it look like OU crawled out on their own limb and it broke on them and then Tech would be the cover Texas needed to move.

Well if you replace Tech with Kansas I think the opposite strategy must be employed. I think Texas and Kansas would be announced as a pair first. This would leave the Big 10 rushing to lock up Oklahoma and leave Iowa State as the most likely pairing.

This would also in many ways be the favorable approach for the networks. Why?

If Texas moves first with Kansas it really puts the pressure on Oklahoma to accept the Big 10, it really opens the door for Iowa State to land a logical destination, and for the ACC to end their quibbling and take West Virginia. Now all 3 AAU's and the top 4 brands are off the table. So if the PAC wants help from the networks for carriage (and they do) then Kansas State, Oklahoma State (which helps OU separate), T.C.U. and Texas Tech all make sense even if they don't fit the academic plans of the PAC.

The PACN gets network support (and it doesn't really matter which network) but they also get 3 states, with penetration in the largest one, and 4 CTZ slots for marketing. KState isn't a bad academic school and Tech has made strides. T.C.U. and OSU give them deep enough penetration along with Tech in the DFW market to make it effective.

If the PAC doesn't go for it then at least OU is out.

ESPN rolls the LHN into the SEC West channel. Charlotte becomes the SEC East channel. Texas anchors the West with A&M, L.S.U, Arkansas, and hopefully a reconnected Missouri as competitors along with the Mississippi schools. Kansas becomes their Kentucky.

Alabama anchors the East with Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina mounting the charges and in a slightly tougher division Vanderbilt helps and Kentucky plays the role of perennial basketball King.

The two divisions, and their market profiles become essentially twins of one another in a recipe designed to protect the status of Kansas and Kentucky in hoops and Texas and Alabama as national brands with both being highly competitive for football. In effect it doubles the successful recipe that ESPN and the SEC have carefully crafted and it essentially doubles the T1, T2, and T3 product.

My only disagreement would be that I don't think the LHN would become a home for SEC West content. If you regionalize individual channels then you run the risk of markets outside the region not being invested in the content and therefore not paying for it. This hasn't been ESPN's M.O. They attempt to take ever linear network to a national market even if negotiations might be a little more regional from a practical perspective. This guarantees the most bang for the buck.

I'm partial to turning the channel into a Spanish version of the SEC Network. That way it could be distributed domestically or internationally. But I have no idea if that's in their thought process.

The SECN currently owns 3 channel locations. The main SECN channel and two overflow channels the third of which I don't think has yet been used. The LHN being converted into Spanish is fine. My point was that you can really intensify your product by putting the West on one channel and the East on the other for games. They can share talk shows and news, etc. They wouldn't be available separately. They would be two halves of one whole. I would think that more people would subscribe if there was more of their school on the network. Doubling the time slots would do that.

I think inside the footprint, in most places at least, that would work. It might be a harder sell nationally though because the cable companies would fight bundling the networks together based on the limited amount of content if you divide everything by two. Could hurt the sub rates, but I don't know.

That and the football games would be the most valuable product and I don't think ESPN would dedicate any more of those to a 3rd tier network. Especially with the ACC Network coming on line, they're going to need those games for their other channels.

The main reason I like the Spanish version is because you can reach a currently untapped audience. You can also take advantage of the Austin studios whereas if you divide only the games between 2 feeds then all that could be run out of Charlotte. Of course, if the LHN is meshed with the SEC then ESPN may sell off the 2nd studio anyway so it might not matter.

I think a lot of things could get sorted out once the 1st Tier contract is done. If ESPN gains more SEC games then it could alter their broadcast schedule. It's also possible we add a 9th game if we move to 16 because it would be a very efficient form of scheduling. The additional inventory might alter some decisions as well.

(07-06-2018 03:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 02:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 11:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 04:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though...

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

I consider it a minor factor of interest, but as to your recollection of how long this may have been in the works, let's go back to the 2010-2 era. It was after the loss of A&M, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri that the new T3 contract extensions were either made or extended (with the exception of the LHN which helped to pry A&M loose as it came before). ESPN held the T3 of just two schools (Kansas and Texas) and FOX held that of Oklahoma. Hmm? Probably a coincidence, but maybe not.

Anyway the pushing of this thought put one of my old assumptions to rest. For a long time I thought that this particular move would require Texas refusing to move with Oklahoma and Oklahoma refusing to come to the SEC without Oklahoma. So if Texas really wanted a reunion with former rivals in the SEC that the SEC would refuse OSU and force OU to head to the Big 10 with Kansas. Then Texas and Tech would join the SEC. The reason being that Texas would want assurances that if they were to gain much of the leverage over former conference mates they would want to make sure first that OU couldn't tag along. It would make it look like OU crawled out on their own limb and it broke on them and then Tech would be the cover Texas needed to move.

Well if you replace Tech with Kansas I think the opposite strategy must be employed. I think Texas and Kansas would be announced as a pair first. This would leave the Big 10 rushing to lock up Oklahoma and leave Iowa State as the most likely pairing.

This would also in many ways be the favorable approach for the networks. Why?

If Texas moves first with Kansas it really puts the pressure on Oklahoma to accept the Big 10, it really opens the door for Iowa State to land a logical destination, and for the ACC to end their quibbling and take West Virginia. Now all 3 AAU's and the top 4 brands are off the table. So if the PAC wants help from the networks for carriage (and they do) then Kansas State, Oklahoma State (which helps OU separate), T.C.U. and Texas Tech all make sense even if they don't fit the academic plans of the PAC.

The PACN gets network support (and it doesn't really matter which network) but they also get 3 states, with penetration in the largest one, and 4 CTZ slots for marketing. KState isn't a bad academic school and Tech has made strides. T.C.U. and OSU give them deep enough penetration along with Tech in the DFW market to make it effective.

If the PAC doesn't go for it then at least OU is out.

ESPN rolls the LHN into the SEC West channel. Charlotte becomes the SEC East channel. Texas anchors the West with A&M, L.S.U, Arkansas, and hopefully a reconnected Missouri as competitors along with the Mississippi schools. Kansas becomes their Kentucky.

Alabama anchors the East with Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina mounting the charges and in a slightly tougher division Vanderbilt helps and Kentucky plays the role of perennial basketball King.

The two divisions, and their market profiles become essentially twins of one another in a recipe designed to protect the status of Kansas and Kentucky in hoops and Texas and Alabama as national brands with both being highly competitive for football. In effect it doubles the successful recipe that ESPN and the SEC have carefully crafted and it essentially doubles the T1, T2, and T3 product.

My only disagreement would be that I don't think the LHN would become a home for SEC West content. If you regionalize individual channels then you run the risk of markets outside the region not being invested in the content and therefore not paying for it. This hasn't been ESPN's M.O. They attempt to take ever linear network to a national market even if negotiations might be a little more regional from a practical perspective. This guarantees the most bang for the buck.

I'm partial to turning the channel into a Spanish version of the SEC Network. That way it could be distributed domestically or internationally. But I have no idea if that's in their thought process.

The SECN currently owns 3 channel locations. The main SECN channel and two overflow channels the third of which I don't think has yet been used. The LHN being converted into Spanish is fine. My point was that you can really intensify your product by putting the West on one channel and the East on the other for games. They can share talk shows and news, etc. They wouldn't be available separately. They would be two halves of one whole. I would think that more people would subscribe if there was more of their school on the network. Doubling the time slots would do that.

I think inside the footprint, in most places at least, that would work. It might be a harder sell nationally though because the cable companies would fight bundling the networks together based on the limited amount of content if you divide everything by two. Could hurt the sub rates, but I don't know.

That and the football games would be the most valuable product and I don't think ESPN would dedicate any more of those to a 3rd tier network. Especially with the ACC Network coming on line, they're going to need those games for their other channels.

The main reason I like the Spanish version is because you can reach a currently untapped audience. You can also take advantage of the Austin studios whereas if you divide only the games between 2 feeds then all that could be run out of Charlotte. Of course, if the LHN is meshed with the SEC then ESPN may sell off the 2nd studio anyway so it might not matter.

I think a lot of things could get sorted out once the 1st Tier contract is done. If ESPN gains more SEC games then it could alter their broadcast schedule. It's also possible we add a 9th game if we move to 16 because it would be a very efficient form of scheduling. The additional inventory might alter some decisions as well.

Pause, take a break, and then reflect. ATU the channels are already bundled (except for the Spanish Language broadcasts). The consumer whether in footprint or outside of it aren't paying one more penny. But what ESPN gains that would make us more money is double the advertising by having original product consistently on two different channels both of which are geographically grouped. This means that not only do national advertisers pay to be on both, but that a much higher volume of local and regional advertising could buy space as well because by grouping those teams in divisions and dedicating the extra channel you target a more specific region thereby making their advertising efforts far more effective than the way we currently broadcast.

Quit thinking about the consumer here because they won't be affected. They will simply get more for their money. It's ESPN and the SEC that are able to double dip on ad revenue by making this move. The Spanish Language channel can be a stand alone utilizing the LHN studios if they need to. The SEC already has 3 channels which are bundled. But, we only really utilize one of them regularly and the 2nd when there are time conflicts. There is no added cost other than a few production people.

(07-06-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 03:12 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Would a Texas/Kansas combination acceptance possibly "force" Oklahoma into the SEC rather than being an "outpost" in the B1G (assuming a B1G offer to them)? Would the SEC be willing to move to 18 to accommodate OU and one other (possibly WVa or OSU) IF (and that I believe it is a BIG if) Texas/.Kansas went SEC? And, IF KU was offered BOTH the B1G & SEC, who would they choose...and why (may depend on who they would be going with to where)?

One question that comes to mind is whether Kansas basketball, as a brand, is worth more to the Big 10, or to the SEC? A follow up question might be how special would Kansas basketball be in a deep and above average Big 10? How much would their special elite status be worth with a natural elite rival like Kentucky to the SEC? I'm saying there are easy answers there because there are not. But KU/UK would be as iconic and elite as UNC/Duke the only thing they would lack is that cross town feel to the rivalry.

I think another reason the SEC might be interested in a move like this is because it would provide a jump start to Missouri.

Mizzou needs a rival and in a lot of ways, KU needs Mizzou. There's nothing like good old fashioned hate to motivate one to improve oneself. Iron sharpens iron, if you will.

Honestly, I think KU basketball is worth more to the SEC simply because we don't have that much gravitas in the basketball world. We get good ratings and our programs are improving, but basketball is more popular in the Midwest and Northeast. We don't have many brands in the South that will generate excitement and ratings like KU.

From KU's perspective, their program would probably gain more national attention by being in the B1G...more big time match-ups with name brands. Ironically, that means KU basketball doesn't add as much to the B1G because it doesn't really fill a need.

BUT, KU's overall athletic department would not be as strong in the B1G. In the end, they'd make more money in the SEC. They'll be in front of more eyeballs as a whole in the SEC. Sticking with Texas and linking up with the Sun Belt states is what their school needs as a whole. And while their bball program would have more quality match-ups on a yearly basis in the B1G, the actual quality of their program would not improve. The dynamics for creating a strong basketball program are fundamentally different from building a football program. In other words, SEC basketball wouldn't hurt KU basketball one iota.