Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1661
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-25-2018 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-25-2018 05:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-24-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-24-2018 03:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

The interesting facet of all realignment heretofore is that it is a process where the eroding away of the smaller pieces have been building the slope down which the larger will slide, and slide in perhaps a more predictable way than they would if confronted with a decision that simply impacted them.

A move by the Big 10 to 8 conference games, with a scheduling agreement with the PAC would likely create an easier path for the gravity pulling on Notre Dame than the path the ACC has constructed for them.

The pull of gravity created by the SEC for Texas is much better defined. We've taken Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri in order to make their slide a slower and more comfortable and familiar one.

Could both buck this on their own power? Yes. But would the energy expended be worth the experience of a different path? Most likely not.

So you might say these potential moves have been being shaped by extraneous forces acting upon their trajectory for over 25 years.
Most schools in the SEC-East may like a scheduling agreement between the SEC & the ACC. Since some in the SEC are playing one, sometimes two, ACC games per year, it seems sort of natural. For the SEC-West, not so much.

Yes. And once the Big 12 is gone that makes a great deal of sense. But really one exists already, it's just not formalized per se. Getting Texas and or Oklahoma seals our expansion westward. It also shores up our boundaries. Nothing West of that area is going to impose upon us, and if the Big 10 stops at Kansas or even Oklahoma the only thing the SEC needs to do at that point is to assist the ACC to keep them as a buffer.

If Texas/Kansas went to the ACC instead, then the SEC west would get Missouri-Kansas and Texas-A&m/Arkansas.

If the SEC gets Texas we could lobby for OK/Kansas to go to the ACC and not the big 10 so we get OK/Texas as an ACC-SEC matchup.

Better yet, ACC gets Texas/OK State/Kansas and we get OK ourselves. That gives Ark/OK/Missouri all a matchup with the ACC. Just don't know who 16 would be for us in that scenario.

Missouri-Kansas
Ark-Texas
OK-OK State
TN-VT
Vandy-Wake
Louisville-KY
Florida-FSU
south carolina-Clemson
Georgia-GT

To clarify, I'm say Texas in the AcC is better than on the Big 10 for us. Obviously Texas in the SEC is the best (AcC takes Tech?)
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2018 10:17 PM by Soobahk40050.)
07-25-2018 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1662
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-25-2018 10:16 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-25-2018 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-25-2018 05:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-24-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-24-2018 03:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

The interesting facet of all realignment heretofore is that it is a process where the eroding away of the smaller pieces have been building the slope down which the larger will slide, and slide in perhaps a more predictable way than they would if confronted with a decision that simply impacted them.

A move by the Big 10 to 8 conference games, with a scheduling agreement with the PAC would likely create an easier path for the gravity pulling on Notre Dame than the path the ACC has constructed for them.

The pull of gravity created by the SEC for Texas is much better defined. We've taken Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri in order to make their slide a slower and more comfortable and familiar one.

Could both buck this on their own power? Yes. But would the energy expended be worth the experience of a different path? Most likely not.

So you might say these potential moves have been being shaped by extraneous forces acting upon their trajectory for over 25 years.
Most schools in the SEC-East may like a scheduling agreement between the SEC & the ACC. Since some in the SEC are playing one, sometimes two, ACC games per year, it seems sort of natural. For the SEC-West, not so much.

Yes. And once the Big 12 is gone that makes a great deal of sense. But really one exists already, it's just not formalized per se. Getting Texas and or Oklahoma seals our expansion westward. It also shores up our boundaries. Nothing West of that area is going to impose upon us, and if the Big 10 stops at Kansas or even Oklahoma the only thing the SEC needs to do at that point is to assist the ACC to keep them as a buffer.

If Texas/Kansas went to the ACC instead, then the SEC west would get Missouri-Kansas and Texas-A&m/Arkansas.

If the SEC gets Texas we could lobby for OK/Kansas to go to the ACC and not the big 10 so we get OK/Texas as an ACC-SEC matchup.

Better yet, ACC gets Texas/OK State/Kansas and we get OK ourselves. That gives Ark/OK/Missouri all a matchup with the ACC. Just don't know who 16 would be for us in that scenario.

Missouri-Kansas
Ark-Texas
OK-OK State
TN-VT
Vandy-Wake
Louisville-KY
Florida-FSU
south carolina-Clemson
Georgia-GT

To clarify, I'm say Texas in the AcC is better than on the Big 10 for us. Obviously Texas in the SEC is the best (AcC takes Tech?)

I think the purpose in taking Texas and Kansas would be both are AAU and on gives us an Alabama/Auburn intensity in house rivalry and the other gives Missouri the instant kind of rivalry they need to start fitting in a bit better. And it gives Kentucky a marquee nationwide basketball game to play annually.

If we had to take Tech with Texas it would give us 3 schools that would be playing at least 2 games a week that all of Texas would want to see, and when they aren't playing each other 3 games a week they would want to see. For a state of 28 million that's strong penetration at premium advertising rates and well worth the two bids. So as a back up plan that's not bad at all.
07-25-2018 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,719
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1663
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
If Texas goes to the SEC I think it's very possible that the ACC either doesn't expand at all, or if it does, it only adds teams in the Eastern Time Zone (think Notre Dame, WVU, possibly Cincinnati; Navy is a remote possibility as a football-only, IMO).
07-26-2018 10:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1664
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Texas goes to the SEC I think it's very possible that the ACC either doesn't expand at all, or if it does, it only adds teams in the Eastern Time Zone (think Notre Dame, WVU, possibly Cincinnati; Navy is a remote possibility as a football-only, IMO).

Unless the ACC was willing to expand with a division of schools in the West, Texas was never coming to the ACC. Think about it logistically. The minor sports were never going to work. Games against ACC schools have no basis in historical context. It was only going to be a marriage of convenience the purpose of which is rapidly disappearing (cable footprint model).
07-26-2018 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1665
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Texas goes to the SEC I think it's very possible that the ACC either doesn't expand at all, or if it does, it only adds teams in the Eastern Time Zone (think Notre Dame, WVU, possibly Cincinnati; Navy is a remote possibility as a football-only, IMO).

Unless the ACC was willing to expand with a division of schools in the West, Texas was never coming to the ACC. Think about it logistically. The minor sports were never going to work. Games against ACC schools have no basis in historical context. It was only going to be a marriage of convenience the purpose of which is rapidly disappearing (cable footprint model).
Logical.
If the B12 breaks, there will be much politics happening. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and even Iowa State as per the BIG, will have legislators and other government officials, as well as prominent boosters, pressing in their behalf, as sister school departures could leave them in a more inferior conference situation.
If Texas opens to the SEC, they may not be adamant about bringing along TTU. Due to State of Texas politics, UT may have pressure to support TTU also moving. Texas A&M would be pressed to vote for both, knowing they may want to do without either in the SEC.
In the past, OU and oSu have insisted they are a pair when it comes to expansion. In Kansas, it hasn't been tested, but they may not want to see KSU regulated to the MWC or the AAC or a gutted B12 full of holes.
Pressure will be on Iowa, and maybe one or two surrounding schools, for the BIG to take ISU over others from the plains.
All this is why if the B12 is to be essentially dissolved, perhaps the SEC, PAC, BIG, and the ACC, need to collaborate. Otherwise, sone of it will be messy, and possibly generate impediments. In-state hard feelings over such can last decades.
If sister schools have a viable "P4" (5?) option, and still play the in-state rivalry games regularly, then conference separation isn't so bad.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018 05:04 PM by OdinFrigg.)
07-26-2018 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1666
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 04:58 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Texas goes to the SEC I think it's very possible that the ACC either doesn't expand at all, or if it does, it only adds teams in the Eastern Time Zone (think Notre Dame, WVU, possibly Cincinnati; Navy is a remote possibility as a football-only, IMO).

Unless the ACC was willing to expand with a division of schools in the West, Texas was never coming to the ACC. Think about it logistically. The minor sports were never going to work. Games against ACC schools have no basis in historical context. It was only going to be a marriage of convenience the purpose of which is rapidly disappearing (cable footprint model).
Logical.
If the B12 breaks, there will be much politics happening. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and even Iowa State as per the BIG, will have legislators and other government officials, as well as prominent boosters, pressing in their behalf, as sister school departures could leave them in a more inferior conference situation.
If Texas opens to the SEC, they may not be adamant about bringing along TTU. Due to State of Texas politics, UT may have pressure to support TTU also moving. Texas A&M would be pressed to vote for both, knowing they may want to do without either in the SEC.
In the past, OU and oSu have insisted they are a pair when it comes to expansion. In Kansas, it hasn't been tested, but they may not want to see KSU regulated to the MWC or the AAC or a gutted B12 full of holes.
Pressure will be on Iowa, and maybe one or two surrounding schools, for the BIG to take ISU over others from the plains.
All this is why if the B12 is to be essentially dissolved, perhaps the SEC, PAC, BIG, and the ACC, need to collaborate. Otherwise, sone of it will be messy, and possibly generate impediments. In-state hard feelings over such can last decades.
If sister schools have a viable "P4" (5?) option, and still play the in-state rivalry games regularly, then conference separation isn't so bad.

Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.
07-26-2018 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ICThawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 195
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation: 54
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #1667
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 04:58 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Texas goes to the SEC I think it's very possible that the ACC either doesn't expand at all, or if it does, it only adds teams in the Eastern Time Zone (think Notre Dame, WVU, possibly Cincinnati; Navy is a remote possibility as a football-only, IMO).

Unless the ACC was willing to expand with a division of schools in the West, Texas was never coming to the ACC. Think about it logistically. The minor sports were never going to work. Games against ACC schools have no basis in historical context. It was only going to be a marriage of convenience the purpose of which is rapidly disappearing (cable footprint model).
Logical.
If the B12 breaks, there will be much politics happening. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and even Iowa State as per the BIG, will have legislators and other government officials, as well as prominent boosters, pressing in their behalf, as sister school departures could leave them in a more inferior conference situation.
If Texas opens to the SEC, they may not be adamant about bringing along TTU. Due to State of Texas politics, UT may have pressure to support TTU also moving. Texas A&M would be pressed to vote for both, knowing they may want to do without either in the SEC.
In the past, OU and oSu have insisted they are a pair when it comes to expansion. In Kansas, it hasn't been tested, but they may not want to see KSU regulated to the MWC or the AAC or a gutted B12 full of holes.
Pressure will be on Iowa, and maybe one or two surrounding schools, for the BIG to take ISU over others from the plains.
All this is why if the B12 is to be essentially dissolved, perhaps the SEC, PAC, BIG, and the ACC, need to collaborate. Otherwise, sone of it will be messy, and possibly generate impediments. In-state hard feelings over such can last decades.
If sister schools have a viable "P4" (5?) option, and still play the in-state rivalry games regularly, then conference separation isn't so bad.

Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.

In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.
07-26-2018 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1668
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 06:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 04:58 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Texas goes to the SEC I think it's very possible that the ACC either doesn't expand at all, or if it does, it only adds teams in the Eastern Time Zone (think Notre Dame, WVU, possibly Cincinnati; Navy is a remote possibility as a football-only, IMO).

Unless the ACC was willing to expand with a division of schools in the West, Texas was never coming to the ACC. Think about it logistically. The minor sports were never going to work. Games against ACC schools have no basis in historical context. It was only going to be a marriage of convenience the purpose of which is rapidly disappearing (cable footprint model).
Logical.
If the B12 breaks, there will be much politics happening. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and even Iowa State as per the BIG, will have legislators and other government officials, as well as prominent boosters, pressing in their behalf, as sister school departures could leave them in a more inferior conference situation.
If Texas opens to the SEC, they may not be adamant about bringing along TTU. Due to State of Texas politics, UT may have pressure to support TTU also moving. Texas A&M would be pressed to vote for both, knowing they may want to do without either in the SEC.
In the past, OU and oSu have insisted they are a pair when it comes to expansion. In Kansas, it hasn't been tested, but they may not want to see KSU regulated to the MWC or the AAC or a gutted B12 full of holes.
Pressure will be on Iowa, and maybe one or two surrounding schools, for the BIG to take ISU over others from the plains.
All this is why if the B12 is to be essentially dissolved, perhaps the SEC, PAC, BIG, and the ACC, need to collaborate. Otherwise, sone of it will be messy, and possibly generate impediments. In-state hard feelings over such can last decades.
If sister schools have a viable "P4" (5?) option, and still play the in-state rivalry games regularly, then conference separation isn't so bad.

Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.

In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.

I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018 08:31 PM by JRsec.)
07-26-2018 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1669
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I've come to think we'll see some amalgamation of the American and the remnants of the Big 12.

I don't think the economics will support a host of Big 12 schools making it into a Power 4 if there's not some sort of merger. UT, OU, and maybe a couple more could make it out.

Honestly, I'm not convinced that KU can make it out. The market is small and the school has financial issues. There was a good chance they would have been left out last time.

I think the best outcome for some of these schools is to grab the best of the AAC and regroup under the banner of the Big 12. That league is already autonomous and there's greater brand value in the name. They wouldn't make huge money, but those schools could fill a vacuum in college football and establish a clear line of demarcation between power schools and a lower rung. Having 5 leagues that are autonomous has a lot of benefits.
07-26-2018 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1670
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 06:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 04:58 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 02:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Unless the ACC was willing to expand with a division of schools in the West, Texas was never coming to the ACC. Think about it logistically. The minor sports were never going to work. Games against ACC schools have no basis in historical context. It was only going to be a marriage of convenience the purpose of which is rapidly disappearing (cable footprint model).
Logical.
If the B12 breaks, there will be much politics happening. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and even Iowa State as per the BIG, will have legislators and other government officials, as well as prominent boosters, pressing in their behalf, as sister school departures could leave them in a more inferior conference situation.
If Texas opens to the SEC, they may not be adamant about bringing along TTU. Due to State of Texas politics, UT may have pressure to support TTU also moving. Texas A&M would be pressed to vote for both, knowing they may want to do without either in the SEC.
In the past, OU and oSu have insisted they are a pair when it comes to expansion. In Kansas, it hasn't been tested, but they may not want to see KSU regulated to the MWC or the AAC or a gutted B12 full of holes.
Pressure will be on Iowa, and maybe one or two surrounding schools, for the BIG to take ISU over others from the plains.
All this is why if the B12 is to be essentially dissolved, perhaps the SEC, PAC, BIG, and the ACC, need to collaborate. Otherwise, sone of it will be messy, and possibly generate impediments. In-state hard feelings over such can last decades.
If sister schools have a viable "P4" (5?) option, and still play the in-state rivalry games regularly, then conference separation isn't so bad.

Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.

In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.

I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.
07-26-2018 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1671
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 06:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 04:58 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Logical.
If the B12 breaks, there will be much politics happening. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and even Iowa State as per the BIG, will have legislators and other government officials, as well as prominent boosters, pressing in their behalf, as sister school departures could leave them in a more inferior conference situation.
If Texas opens to the SEC, they may not be adamant about bringing along TTU. Due to State of Texas politics, UT may have pressure to support TTU also moving. Texas A&M would be pressed to vote for both, knowing they may want to do without either in the SEC.
In the past, OU and oSu have insisted they are a pair when it comes to expansion. In Kansas, it hasn't been tested, but they may not want to see KSU regulated to the MWC or the AAC or a gutted B12 full of holes.
Pressure will be on Iowa, and maybe one or two surrounding schools, for the BIG to take ISU over others from the plains.
All this is why if the B12 is to be essentially dissolved, perhaps the SEC, PAC, BIG, and the ACC, need to collaborate. Otherwise, sone of it will be messy, and possibly generate impediments. In-state hard feelings over such can last decades.
If sister schools have a viable "P4" (5?) option, and still play the in-state rivalry games regularly, then conference separation isn't so bad.

Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.

In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.

I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.
07-26-2018 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1672
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I think the PAC just likes their club.

They've shot themselves in the foot often and don't seem to care.
07-26-2018 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #1673
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 06:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes! And after 2023 when the Big 12 GOR expires it will be a state by state matter rather than a conference one. So if Texas and Tech leave that leaves Oklahoma to worry about OSU, Kansas to worry about KState, and Iowa to worry about Iowa State, while WVU is on their own with the privates.

In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.

I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2018 11:19 AM by bigblueblindness.)
07-27-2018 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1674
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-27-2018 11:16 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 06:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  In the cases of Kansas & Oklahoma, one could argue that having ONE of the two schools in each state (presumably OU & KU) in a P4 (assumes the B12 is no longer in existence, or at least not a P conference) is preferable to having NO school in a P4. Though PROBABLY OU/OSU and KU/KSU would "like" to stay together, it will be "every school for itself", I believe. I doubt Iowa worries about ISU and probably WVU has to worry about itself as no one else will. TCU & Baylor each have to hope it can ride a draft of UT somehow, somewhere.

I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.

I've waffled back and forth between the inclusion of more schools or the reduction of the 65 we currently have in the P5. I think there were only 4 of the P5 schools that had more than a 10% subsidy for athletics. The only G5 school which ranked in the top 65 in revenue was Connecticut at 49th. However, the Huskies were 50% subsidized. Only Washington State 66th and Wake Forest 65th were below 70 million in total revenue.

So I guess what I'm saying here is monetarily speaking, whether that is in terms of total revenue, or in terms of their economic impact (as estimated by the WSJ), none of the G5 schools currently have metrics that indicate their ability to sustain athletics without subsidy (as all of them exceed 25% in subsidy), and none of them show an ability to positively impact the revenue of any existing P5 conference.

My suspicion is that we are much more likely to see contraction within the P5 than we are to see expansion with the current G5. Now the good new there is that in the right location even Baylor has value. Washington State and Wake Forest had better hope that the PAC and ACC are never raided, or at least never raided again.

The SEC earned an average of 15 million more than the Big 10 per school in total revenue last year. We earned 24 million more than the Big 12, and 43 million more on average than an ACC school. My point being that with those kinds of differences, ESPN not withstanding, the Big 10 and SEC are so far ahead of the rest that the lure of larger revenue will remain a constant moving forward. Furthermore, any additions they make will only increase the gravity of the draw they have toward acquiring even more schools as long as they can add to the revenue base.

The only governing factor that inhibits their consumption of everything of value is that they are both so well paid now that very few schools add to their bottom line and in the next expansion both are likely to take a school valuable enough to cover their taking of one that could not have gotten in on their own.

Should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma it would be game changing lock for the conference that did scoop them. The revenue difference between that conference and either the PAC or ACC would be staggering and wholly destabilizing as a force moving forward.

The networks know this and that is why I thing if the SEC lands one of Oklahoma or Texas then the Big 10 will get the other. Even the networks realize that for the game to remain profitable that some competitive balance must be maintained.

The best balancing that could be done would be for the PAC to take the Texa-homa package. That would help the PAC play catch up without destabilizing the already strained competitive balance. If N.D. ever goes all in with the ACC that could help as well. But if I'm the ACC then I don't want to see the PAC expand that way because it eliminates the Big 12 as a power conference and forever locks the ACC into an inferior position, even with N.D. all in. If I'm ESPN who has coveted the possession of Texas more completely, and has interest in Kansas as well then unless I get a big piece of the PACN, and get it cheaply, I have no interest in seeing Texas head west either.

In this next round of realignment I fully expect to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks.

ESPN will likely be content to keep part ownership in Notre Dame and will covet the possibility of one day owning their rights as an independent where they can monetize Notre Dame and U.S.C. and Notre Dame and Stanford.

If I am ESPN and concerned about the viability of the ACCN then nailing down West Virginia and adding T.C.U. would go a long way to increasing the reach of the fledgling network.

If I'm the PAC I would be trying to lock down T.C.U. and Texas Tech to move to 14 and depending upon what carriers wanted to buy, or lease, eyeballing Kansas State and Oklahoma State for the expanded markets and for a new time slot in which to play. The PAC won't want any of those schools so they may be content sitting on their hands.

But I don't see any promotions for the G5. The Florida twins are best positioned but for whom? The ACC has it covered in Florida and the SEC for now is happy with just the Gators. If USF research continues to grow and their subsidy level drops below 20% then maybe one day they would be a good catch for the SEC as they deliver a part of Florida where the Gators don't draw as well and they are on the Gulf side of the state where we have nothing. But that's probably 20 years away from being viable.

So what I'm saying is that I could easily see the Big 10 and SEC move only to 16 in this next expansion, and that to increase markets the ACC would as well. So if the Big 12 makes this move possible then we could easily see the present P5 shrink to 60 full time P4 conference members with Notre Dame as a partial.
07-28-2018 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1675
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-26-2018 11:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the PAC just likes their club.

They've shot themselves in the foot often and don't seem to care.

Agree with that.

I recall the time Stanford black-balled Texas; and Texas was considering coming alone at the time.

When it comes to expanding again, finding schools with elite academics and are athletic blue-bloods will be quite difficult. Now, they could be pleased with Texas, Kansas, and Rice coming onboard, but they may be playing with fewer chips than before.
07-28-2018 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RocketCitySooner Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 49
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Sooners
Location:
Post: #1676
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-28-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-27-2018 11:16 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.

I've waffled back and forth between the inclusion of more schools or the reduction of the 65 we currently have in the P5. I think there were only 4 of the P5 schools that had more than a 10% subsidy for athletics. The only G5 school which ranked in the top 65 in revenue was Connecticut at 49th. However, the Huskies were 50% subsidized. Only Washington State 66th and Wake Forest 65th were below 70 million in total revenue.

So I guess what I'm saying here is monetarily speaking, whether that is in terms of total revenue, or in terms of their economic impact (as estimated by the WSJ), none of the G5 schools currently have metrics that indicate their ability to sustain athletics without subsidy (as all of them exceed 25% in subsidy), and none of them show an ability to positively impact the revenue of any existing P5 conference.

My suspicion is that we are much more likely to see contraction within the P5 than we are to see expansion with the current G5. Now the good new there is that in the right location even Baylor has value. Washington State and Wake Forest had better hope that the PAC and ACC are never raided, or at least never raided again.

The SEC earned an average of 15 million more than the Big 10 per school in total revenue last year. We earned 24 million more than the Big 12, and 43 million more on average than an ACC school. My point being that with those kinds of differences, ESPN not withstanding, the Big 10 and SEC are so far ahead of the rest that the lure of larger revenue will remain a constant moving forward. Furthermore, any additions they make will only increase the gravity of the draw they have toward acquiring even more schools as long as they can add to the revenue base.

The only governing factor that inhibits their consumption of everything of value is that they are both so well paid now that very few schools add to their bottom line and in the next expansion both are likely to take a school valuable enough to cover their taking of one that could not have gotten in on their own.

Should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma it would be game changing lock for the conference that did scoop them. The revenue difference between that conference and either the PAC or ACC would be staggering and wholly destabilizing as a force moving forward.

The networks know this and that is why I thing if the SEC lands one of Oklahoma or Texas then the Big 10 will get the other. Even the networks realize that for the game to remain profitable that some competitive balance must be maintained.

The best balancing that could be done would be for the PAC to take the Texa-homa package. That would help the PAC play catch up without destabilizing the already strained competitive balance. If N.D. ever goes all in with the ACC that could help as well. But if I'm the ACC then I don't want to see the PAC expand that way because it eliminates the Big 12 as a power conference and forever locks the ACC into an inferior position, even with N.D. all in. If I'm ESPN who has coveted the possession of Texas more completely, and has interest in Kansas as well then unless I get a big piece of the PACN, and get it cheaply, I have no interest in seeing Texas head west either.

In this next round of realignment I fully expect to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks.

ESPN will likely be content to keep part ownership in Notre Dame and will covet the possibility of one day owning their rights as an independent where they can monetize Notre Dame and U.S.C. and Notre Dame and Stanford.

If I am ESPN and concerned about the viability of the ACCN then nailing down West Virginia and adding T.C.U. would go a long way to increasing the reach of the fledgling network.

If I'm the PAC I would be trying to lock down T.C.U. and Texas Tech to move to 14 and depending upon what carriers wanted to buy, or lease, eyeballing Kansas State and Oklahoma State for the expanded markets and for a new time slot in which to play. The PAC won't want any of those schools so they may be content sitting on their hands.

But I don't see any promotions for the G5. The Florida twins are best positioned but for whom? The ACC has it covered in Florida and the SEC for now is happy with just the Gators. If USF research continues to grow and their subsidy level drops below 20% then maybe one day they would be a good catch for the SEC as they deliver a part of Florida where the Gators don't draw as well and they are on the Gulf side of the state where we have nothing. But that's probably 20 years away from being viable.

So what I'm saying is that I could easily see the Big 10 and SEC move only to 16 in this next expansion, and that to increase markets the ACC would as well. So if the Big 12 makes this move possible then we could easily see the present P5 shrink to 60 full time P4 conference members with Notre Dame as a partial.

When you say you expect: "to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks."

Are you saying that you expect Fox/ESPN to try to place OU/ISU in the B1G and UT/KU in the SEC? That would be consistent with your belief that UT and OU would be split between B1G and SEC.
07-30-2018 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1677
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-30-2018 03:53 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  
(07-28-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-27-2018 11:16 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.

I've waffled back and forth between the inclusion of more schools or the reduction of the 65 we currently have in the P5. I think there were only 4 of the P5 schools that had more than a 10% subsidy for athletics. The only G5 school which ranked in the top 65 in revenue was Connecticut at 49th. However, the Huskies were 50% subsidized. Only Washington State 66th and Wake Forest 65th were below 70 million in total revenue.

So I guess what I'm saying here is monetarily speaking, whether that is in terms of total revenue, or in terms of their economic impact (as estimated by the WSJ), none of the G5 schools currently have metrics that indicate their ability to sustain athletics without subsidy (as all of them exceed 25% in subsidy), and none of them show an ability to positively impact the revenue of any existing P5 conference.

My suspicion is that we are much more likely to see contraction within the P5 than we are to see expansion with the current G5. Now the good new there is that in the right location even Baylor has value. Washington State and Wake Forest had better hope that the PAC and ACC are never raided, or at least never raided again.

The SEC earned an average of 15 million more than the Big 10 per school in total revenue last year. We earned 24 million more than the Big 12, and 43 million more on average than an ACC school. My point being that with those kinds of differences, ESPN not withstanding, the Big 10 and SEC are so far ahead of the rest that the lure of larger revenue will remain a constant moving forward. Furthermore, any additions they make will only increase the gravity of the draw they have toward acquiring even more schools as long as they can add to the revenue base.

The only governing factor that inhibits their consumption of everything of value is that they are both so well paid now that very few schools add to their bottom line and in the next expansion both are likely to take a school valuable enough to cover their taking of one that could not have gotten in on their own.

Should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma it would be game changing lock for the conference that did scoop them. The revenue difference between that conference and either the PAC or ACC would be staggering and wholly destabilizing as a force moving forward.

The networks know this and that is why I thing if the SEC lands one of Oklahoma or Texas then the Big 10 will get the other. Even the networks realize that for the game to remain profitable that some competitive balance must be maintained.

The best balancing that could be done would be for the PAC to take the Texa-homa package. That would help the PAC play catch up without destabilizing the already strained competitive balance. If N.D. ever goes all in with the ACC that could help as well. But if I'm the ACC then I don't want to see the PAC expand that way because it eliminates the Big 12 as a power conference and forever locks the ACC into an inferior position, even with N.D. all in. If I'm ESPN who has coveted the possession of Texas more completely, and has interest in Kansas as well then unless I get a big piece of the PACN, and get it cheaply, I have no interest in seeing Texas head west either.

In this next round of realignment I fully expect to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks.

ESPN will likely be content to keep part ownership in Notre Dame and will covet the possibility of one day owning their rights as an independent where they can monetize Notre Dame and U.S.C. and Notre Dame and Stanford.

If I am ESPN and concerned about the viability of the ACCN then nailing down West Virginia and adding T.C.U. would go a long way to increasing the reach of the fledgling network.

If I'm the PAC I would be trying to lock down T.C.U. and Texas Tech to move to 14 and depending upon what carriers wanted to buy, or lease, eyeballing Kansas State and Oklahoma State for the expanded markets and for a new time slot in which to play. The PAC won't want any of those schools so they may be content sitting on their hands.

But I don't see any promotions for the G5. The Florida twins are best positioned but for whom? The ACC has it covered in Florida and the SEC for now is happy with just the Gators. If USF research continues to grow and their subsidy level drops below 20% then maybe one day they would be a good catch for the SEC as they deliver a part of Florida where the Gators don't draw as well and they are on the Gulf side of the state where we have nothing. But that's probably 20 years away from being viable.

So what I'm saying is that I could easily see the Big 10 and SEC move only to 16 in this next expansion, and that to increase markets the ACC would as well. So if the Big 12 makes this move possible then we could easily see the present P5 shrink to 60 full time P4 conference members with Notre Dame as a partial.

When you say you expect: "to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks."

Are you saying that you expect Fox/ESPN to try to place OU/ISU in the B1G and UT/KU in the SEC? That would be consistent with your belief that UT and OU would be split between B1G and SEC.
Yes that's what I expect the networks to try. However, if Texas insists upon Texas Tech then it could shift to what the networks would not necessarily prefer: UT/TTU to the SEC and OU/KU to the Big 10 with ISU losing out unless the PAC decides to do something against their nature.

I do think that the Big 10 needs the football gravitas worse than the SEC but that both want a top brand to help realign their divisions. Obviously the SEC might have interest in further cementing Missouri by bringing in a school as important to them as Kansas has been historically.

The question becomes does Texas seek its ultimate advantage in all of this by separating themselves from all other Texas schools but A&M and at least leveling the recruiting playing field there and so they bring Kansas with them thereby elevating their status above all other Big 12 members as they see it and restoring two historic rivals to appease their fan base, or do they get politically cajoled into taking care of Tech?

If UT can move without Tech, and without political pressure, then why not move with Kansas? ESPN is the one who would want the Jayhawks to have to rival up with Kentucky giving them an SEC equivalent to UNC/Duke. Plus the addition of Kansas might balance the difficulty between the two divisions of the SEC a bit.

But if it's Tech then ESPN would much rather corral the Horns more permanently as part of their advertising strategy in the Lone Star state. In that case Tech simply cinches their leverage there.

Now if Texas balks at all of it then look for OU/OSU to the SEC to become a viable pairing. Then all bets are off for everyone else.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2018 04:55 PM by JRsec.)
07-30-2018 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RocketCitySooner Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 49
Joined: Mar 2018
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Sooners
Location:
Post: #1678
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-30-2018 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 03:53 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  
(07-28-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-27-2018 11:16 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.

I've waffled back and forth between the inclusion of more schools or the reduction of the 65 we currently have in the P5. I think there were only 4 of the P5 schools that had more than a 10% subsidy for athletics. The only G5 school which ranked in the top 65 in revenue was Connecticut at 49th. However, the Huskies were 50% subsidized. Only Washington State 66th and Wake Forest 65th were below 70 million in total revenue.

So I guess what I'm saying here is monetarily speaking, whether that is in terms of total revenue, or in terms of their economic impact (as estimated by the WSJ), none of the G5 schools currently have metrics that indicate their ability to sustain athletics without subsidy (as all of them exceed 25% in subsidy), and none of them show an ability to positively impact the revenue of any existing P5 conference.

My suspicion is that we are much more likely to see contraction within the P5 than we are to see expansion with the current G5. Now the good new there is that in the right location even Baylor has value. Washington State and Wake Forest had better hope that the PAC and ACC are never raided, or at least never raided again.

The SEC earned an average of 15 million more than the Big 10 per school in total revenue last year. We earned 24 million more than the Big 12, and 43 million more on average than an ACC school. My point being that with those kinds of differences, ESPN not withstanding, the Big 10 and SEC are so far ahead of the rest that the lure of larger revenue will remain a constant moving forward. Furthermore, any additions they make will only increase the gravity of the draw they have toward acquiring even more schools as long as they can add to the revenue base.

The only governing factor that inhibits their consumption of everything of value is that they are both so well paid now that very few schools add to their bottom line and in the next expansion both are likely to take a school valuable enough to cover their taking of one that could not have gotten in on their own.

Should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma it would be game changing lock for the conference that did scoop them. The revenue difference between that conference and either the PAC or ACC would be staggering and wholly destabilizing as a force moving forward.

The networks know this and that is why I thing if the SEC lands one of Oklahoma or Texas then the Big 10 will get the other. Even the networks realize that for the game to remain profitable that some competitive balance must be maintained.

The best balancing that could be done would be for the PAC to take the Texa-homa package. That would help the PAC play catch up without destabilizing the already strained competitive balance. If N.D. ever goes all in with the ACC that could help as well. But if I'm the ACC then I don't want to see the PAC expand that way because it eliminates the Big 12 as a power conference and forever locks the ACC into an inferior position, even with N.D. all in. If I'm ESPN who has coveted the possession of Texas more completely, and has interest in Kansas as well then unless I get a big piece of the PACN, and get it cheaply, I have no interest in seeing Texas head west either.

In this next round of realignment I fully expect to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks.

ESPN will likely be content to keep part ownership in Notre Dame and will covet the possibility of one day owning their rights as an independent where they can monetize Notre Dame and U.S.C. and Notre Dame and Stanford.

If I am ESPN and concerned about the viability of the ACCN then nailing down West Virginia and adding T.C.U. would go a long way to increasing the reach of the fledgling network.

If I'm the PAC I would be trying to lock down T.C.U. and Texas Tech to move to 14 and depending upon what carriers wanted to buy, or lease, eyeballing Kansas State and Oklahoma State for the expanded markets and for a new time slot in which to play. The PAC won't want any of those schools so they may be content sitting on their hands.

But I don't see any promotions for the G5. The Florida twins are best positioned but for whom? The ACC has it covered in Florida and the SEC for now is happy with just the Gators. If USF research continues to grow and their subsidy level drops below 20% then maybe one day they would be a good catch for the SEC as they deliver a part of Florida where the Gators don't draw as well and they are on the Gulf side of the state where we have nothing. But that's probably 20 years away from being viable.

So what I'm saying is that I could easily see the Big 10 and SEC move only to 16 in this next expansion, and that to increase markets the ACC would as well. So if the Big 12 makes this move possible then we could easily see the present P5 shrink to 60 full time P4 conference members with Notre Dame as a partial.

When you say you expect: "to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks."

Are you saying that you expect Fox/ESPN to try to place OU/ISU in the B1G and UT/KU in the SEC? That would be consistent with your belief that UT and OU would be split between B1G and SEC.
Yes that's what I expect the networks to try. However, if Texas insists upon Texas Tech then it could shift to what the networks would not necessarily prefer: UT/TTU to the SEC and OU/KU to the Big 10 with ISU losing out unless the PAC decides to do something against their nature.

I do think that the Big 10 needs the football gravitas worse than the SEC but that both want a top brand to help realign their divisions. Obviously the SEC might have interest in further cementing Missouri by bringing in a school as important to them as Kansas has been historically.

The question becomes does Texas seek its ultimate advantage in all of this by separating themselves from all other Texas schools but A&M and at least leveling the recruiting playing field there and so they bring Kansas with them thereby elevating their status above all other Big 12 members as they see it and restoring two historic rivals to appease their fan base, or do they get politically cajoled into taking care of Tech?

If UT can move without Tech, and without political pressure, then why not move with Kansas? ESPN is the one who would want the Jayhawks to have to rival up with Kentucky giving them an SEC equivalent to UNC/Duke. Plus the addition of Kansas might balance the difficulty between the two divisions of the SEC a bit.

But if it's Tech then ESPN would much rather corral the Horns more permanently as part of their advertising strategy in the Lone Star state. In that case Tech simply cinches their leverage there.

Now if Texas balks at all of it then look for OU/OSU to the SEC to become a viable pairing. Then all bets are off for everyone else.

If Texas "balks", why wouldn't the SEC prefer OU/KU over OU/OSU?
07-30-2018 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1679
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-30-2018 05:44 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 03:53 PM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  
(07-28-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-27-2018 11:16 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.

I've waffled back and forth between the inclusion of more schools or the reduction of the 65 we currently have in the P5. I think there were only 4 of the P5 schools that had more than a 10% subsidy for athletics. The only G5 school which ranked in the top 65 in revenue was Connecticut at 49th. However, the Huskies were 50% subsidized. Only Washington State 66th and Wake Forest 65th were below 70 million in total revenue.

So I guess what I'm saying here is monetarily speaking, whether that is in terms of total revenue, or in terms of their economic impact (as estimated by the WSJ), none of the G5 schools currently have metrics that indicate their ability to sustain athletics without subsidy (as all of them exceed 25% in subsidy), and none of them show an ability to positively impact the revenue of any existing P5 conference.

My suspicion is that we are much more likely to see contraction within the P5 than we are to see expansion with the current G5. Now the good new there is that in the right location even Baylor has value. Washington State and Wake Forest had better hope that the PAC and ACC are never raided, or at least never raided again.

The SEC earned an average of 15 million more than the Big 10 per school in total revenue last year. We earned 24 million more than the Big 12, and 43 million more on average than an ACC school. My point being that with those kinds of differences, ESPN not withstanding, the Big 10 and SEC are so far ahead of the rest that the lure of larger revenue will remain a constant moving forward. Furthermore, any additions they make will only increase the gravity of the draw they have toward acquiring even more schools as long as they can add to the revenue base.

The only governing factor that inhibits their consumption of everything of value is that they are both so well paid now that very few schools add to their bottom line and in the next expansion both are likely to take a school valuable enough to cover their taking of one that could not have gotten in on their own.

Should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma it would be game changing lock for the conference that did scoop them. The revenue difference between that conference and either the PAC or ACC would be staggering and wholly destabilizing as a force moving forward.

The networks know this and that is why I thing if the SEC lands one of Oklahoma or Texas then the Big 10 will get the other. Even the networks realize that for the game to remain profitable that some competitive balance must be maintained.

The best balancing that could be done would be for the PAC to take the Texa-homa package. That would help the PAC play catch up without destabilizing the already strained competitive balance. If N.D. ever goes all in with the ACC that could help as well. But if I'm the ACC then I don't want to see the PAC expand that way because it eliminates the Big 12 as a power conference and forever locks the ACC into an inferior position, even with N.D. all in. If I'm ESPN who has coveted the possession of Texas more completely, and has interest in Kansas as well then unless I get a big piece of the PACN, and get it cheaply, I have no interest in seeing Texas head west either.

In this next round of realignment I fully expect to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks.

ESPN will likely be content to keep part ownership in Notre Dame and will covet the possibility of one day owning their rights as an independent where they can monetize Notre Dame and U.S.C. and Notre Dame and Stanford.

If I am ESPN and concerned about the viability of the ACCN then nailing down West Virginia and adding T.C.U. would go a long way to increasing the reach of the fledgling network.

If I'm the PAC I would be trying to lock down T.C.U. and Texas Tech to move to 14 and depending upon what carriers wanted to buy, or lease, eyeballing Kansas State and Oklahoma State for the expanded markets and for a new time slot in which to play. The PAC won't want any of those schools so they may be content sitting on their hands.

But I don't see any promotions for the G5. The Florida twins are best positioned but for whom? The ACC has it covered in Florida and the SEC for now is happy with just the Gators. If USF research continues to grow and their subsidy level drops below 20% then maybe one day they would be a good catch for the SEC as they deliver a part of Florida where the Gators don't draw as well and they are on the Gulf side of the state where we have nothing. But that's probably 20 years away from being viable.

So what I'm saying is that I could easily see the Big 10 and SEC move only to 16 in this next expansion, and that to increase markets the ACC would as well. So if the Big 12 makes this move possible then we could easily see the present P5 shrink to 60 full time P4 conference members with Notre Dame as a partial.

When you say you expect: "to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks."

Are you saying that you expect Fox/ESPN to try to place OU/ISU in the B1G and UT/KU in the SEC? That would be consistent with your belief that UT and OU would be split between B1G and SEC.
Yes that's what I expect the networks to try. However, if Texas insists upon Texas Tech then it could shift to what the networks would not necessarily prefer: UT/TTU to the SEC and OU/KU to the Big 10 with ISU losing out unless the PAC decides to do something against their nature.

I do think that the Big 10 needs the football gravitas worse than the SEC but that both want a top brand to help realign their divisions. Obviously the SEC might have interest in further cementing Missouri by bringing in a school as important to them as Kansas has been historically.

The question becomes does Texas seek its ultimate advantage in all of this by separating themselves from all other Texas schools but A&M and at least leveling the recruiting playing field there and so they bring Kansas with them thereby elevating their status above all other Big 12 members as they see it and restoring two historic rivals to appease their fan base, or do they get politically cajoled into taking care of Tech?

If UT can move without Tech, and without political pressure, then why not move with Kansas? ESPN is the one who would want the Jayhawks to have to rival up with Kentucky giving them an SEC equivalent to UNC/Duke. Plus the addition of Kansas might balance the difficulty between the two divisions of the SEC a bit.

But if it's Tech then ESPN would much rather corral the Horns more permanently as part of their advertising strategy in the Lone Star state. In that case Tech simply cinches their leverage there.

Now if Texas balks at all of it then look for OU/OSU to the SEC to become a viable pairing. Then all bets are off for everyone else.

If Texas "balks", why wouldn't the SEC prefer OU/KU over OU/OSU?

I think we would, but I also believe Gallogly, like Boren before him, will have great political pressure to bring the Pokes along. It has been the position of Oklahoma in every other realignment bargaining position whether with the PAC or SEC in the past and I see no indication that the political climate on that matter has changed regardless of what others on the Oklahoma board say about it.
07-30-2018 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1680
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.
07-30-2018 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


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