(08-01-2018 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:17 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

(08-02-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:17 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

1
I knew which article you were citing. And guess who it is by, Clay Travis! And guess when it was written? 2015 And guess what the pay model was based on in 2015? 1 school per market because if you had 1 school in the market you got paid by the number of subscriptions in that market whether the were for your school or another as long as they had ESPN.

None of that applies now. What's more Clay Travis didn't have any of his information straight from what transpired during the 2010-2 realignment discussions with Slive. He totally failed to understand what Slive had asked for, and how limited that exclusion was, and then he helped perpetuate a myth about Florida and South Carolina when the reality was quite different.

The pay model we are in now will only pay for actual viewers, is more dependent on ad money, and will be based on content and branding.

2010 to 2016 was a different world than 2017-8 and moving forward. You'd be better off (a) not believing anything that Clay Travis who now takes his checks from FOX has to write or say, and (b) focusing on how to maximize profits in a world less dependent on cable fees an more dependent on actual viewers and in a world that depends on actual viewers having both Texas and Texas A&M would deliver the highest % of actual viewers vs total possible viewers in Texas which delivers the highest ad revenue.

We are going to rue the day we didn't get F.S.U. to control the Florida markets. But then I pointed that out in 2009 before this got started.

As for UT's remarks about the SEC. They've been in talks with us 3 times since '91. They know the SEC helped to destabilize the SWC by taking Arkansas. They know we've taken A&M and Missouri and contributed to the shakiness of the Big 12. They've made a point of speaking ill of the SEC, but they've also stayed in contact as to their value to us. In business many people, even enemies, find associations mutually beneficial and change their rhetoric accordingly. If the SEC is the best fit, and offers them the most familiar schedule and games that matter to their fans, and they are forced to have to make a move, I like our chances. And I also like having the vast majority of what is a 28 million population state.

Disheartening stat to consider if OU considers Big Ten move:

Sam McKewon
Sam McKewon
@swmckewonOWH
Since joining the Big Ten here are Nebraska's coaches poll preseason rankings:

2011 - 11
2012 - 16
2013 - 18
2014 - 22
2015 - NR
2016 - NR
2017 - NR
2018 - NR
11:32 AM · Aug 2, 2018

(08-02-2018 03:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:17 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

1
I knew which article you were citing. And guess who it is by, Clay Travis! And guess when it was written? 2015 And guess what the pay model was based on in 2015? 1 school per market because if you had 1 school in the market you got paid by the number of subscriptions in that market whether the were for your school or another as long as they had ESPN.

None of that applies now. What's more Clay Travis didn't have any of his information straight from what transpired during the 2010-2 realignment discussions with Slive. He totally failed to understand what Slive had asked for, and how limited that exclusion was, and then he helped perpetuate a myth about Florida and South Carolina when the reality was quite different.

The pay model we are in now will only pay for actual viewers, is more dependent on ad money, and will be based on content and branding.

2010 to 2016 was a different world than 2017-8 and moving forward. You'd be better off (a) not believing anything that Clay Travis who now takes his checks from FOX has to write or say, and (b) focusing on how to maximize profits in a world less dependent on cable fees an more dependent on actual viewers and in a world that depends on actual viewers having both Texas and Texas A&M would deliver the highest % of actual viewers vs total possible viewers in Texas which delivers the highest ad revenue.

We are going to rue the day we didn't get F.S.U. to control the Florida markets. But then I pointed that out in 2009 before this got started.

As for UT's remarks about the SEC. They've been in talks with us 3 times since '91. They know the SEC helped to destabilize the SWC by taking Arkansas. They know we've taken A&M and Missouri and contributed to the shakiness of the Big 12. They've made a point of speaking ill of the SEC, but they've also stayed in contact as to their value to us. In business many people, even enemies, find associations mutually beneficial and change their rhetoric accordingly. If the SEC is the best fit, and offers them the most familiar schedule and games that matter to their fans, and they are forced to have to make a move, I like our chances. And I also like having the vast majority of what is a 28 million population state.

JR, do you ever see the SEC as having a second chance @ FSU?? I would love to get them & Clemson both!! My Dawgs compete a lot against these teams on the recruiting trail, and I would really like to play them in conference. I would also like to have Auburn in the East Division also, or be a permanent opponent should divisions be scrapped.

As for my team’s in-state nemesis Georgia Tech, I do not believe that they would be a very good fit for the SEC. Even as a rival, I admire and respect what Bobby Dodd did for Tech, but the truth of the matter is this: when Tech decided to streamline their curriculum to what they have currently (this occurred back when Dodd was still coaching, Tech could no longer recruit the typical SEC athlete. If you talk to GTSwagger about this, he will tell you that Tech’s curriculum is even more demanding than what is required of Duke or Stanford athletes!! But the gap between Duke & Georgia Tech is not nearly as bad as the gap between Alabama & Georgia Tech or even Kentucky & Georgia Tech. This is why Tech is in the ACC, and I believe it is the best home for the Yellowjackets as opposed to the SEC. To put it another way, Georgia Tech in the SEC would be worse than Vandy in the SEC. For similar reasons, I also believe that Miami (FL) would be a very bad SEC fit.

(08-02-2018 11:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 03:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:17 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

1
I knew which article you were citing. And guess who it is by, Clay Travis! And guess when it was written? 2015 And guess what the pay model was based on in 2015? 1 school per market because if you had 1 school in the market you got paid by the number of subscriptions in that market whether the were for your school or another as long as they had ESPN.

None of that applies now. What's more Clay Travis didn't have any of his information straight from what transpired during the 2010-2 realignment discussions with Slive. He totally failed to understand what Slive had asked for, and how limited that exclusion was, and then he helped perpetuate a myth about Florida and South Carolina when the reality was quite different.

The pay model we are in now will only pay for actual viewers, is more dependent on ad money, and will be based on content and branding.

2010 to 2016 was a different world than 2017-8 and moving forward. You'd be better off (a) not believing anything that Clay Travis who now takes his checks from FOX has to write or say, and (b) focusing on how to maximize profits in a world less dependent on cable fees an more dependent on actual viewers and in a world that depends on actual viewers having both Texas and Texas A&M would deliver the highest % of actual viewers vs total possible viewers in Texas which delivers the highest ad revenue.

We are going to rue the day we didn't get F.S.U. to control the Florida markets. But then I pointed that out in 2009 before this got started.

As for UT's remarks about the SEC. They've been in talks with us 3 times since '91. They know the SEC helped to destabilize the SWC by taking Arkansas. They know we've taken A&M and Missouri and contributed to the shakiness of the Big 12. They've made a point of speaking ill of the SEC, but they've also stayed in contact as to their value to us. In business many people, even enemies, find associations mutually beneficial and change their rhetoric accordingly. If the SEC is the best fit, and offers them the most familiar schedule and games that matter to their fans, and they are forced to have to make a move, I like our chances. And I also like having the vast majority of what is a 28 million population state.

JR, do you ever see the SEC as having a second chance @ FSU?? I would love to get them & Clemson both!! My Dawgs compete a lot against these teams on the recruiting trail, and I would really like to play them in conference. I would also like to have Auburn in the East Division also, or be a permanent opponent should divisions be scrapped.

As for my team’s in-state nemesis Georgia Tech, I do not believe that they would be a very good fit for the SEC. Even as a rival, I admire and respect what Bobby Dodd did for Tech, but the truth of the matter is this: when Tech decided to streamline their curriculum to what they have currently (this occurred back when Dodd was still coaching, Tech could no longer recruit the typical SEC athlete. If you talk to GTSwagger about this, he will tell you that Tech’s curriculum is even more demanding than what is required of Duke or Stanford athletes!! But the gap between Duke & Georgia Tech is not nearly as bad as the gap between Alabama & Georgia Tech or even Kentucky & Georgia Tech. This is why Tech is in the ACC, and I believe it is the best home for the Yellowjackets as opposed to the SEC. To put it another way, Georgia Tech in the SEC would be worse than Vandy in the SEC. For similar reasons, I also believe that Miami (FL) would be a very bad SEC fit.

I agree with your assessment of Georgia Tech and Miami. The only way I could see the SEC taking either of them would be to keep the Big 10 from expanding South. However if we already had Texas or Oklahoma or both we probably wouldn't care. As to F.S.U. and Clemson if the ACCN doesn't pan out to be strong enough to make up a significant % of the revenue gap then yes, at some point in the future they may both become available.

(08-01-2018 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

Will nobody come out and say it? These are the people who want to secede from the U.S., fight the government on sanctuary cities, backed Ceasar Chavez, and gave us the Summer of Love. They are just plain nuts! And nothing as mundane as manly sports is going to enter into their safety zone and despoil their utopia. And to screw up this badly they all get rewarded so handsomely!

Guys, they're just not like the rest of us and never will be!

Because it would be ascribing entire states/regions with mentalities that only exist really only entire in the metro areas and West of the I-5.

(08-02-2018 11:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 03:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:17 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  William have to explain this later, but I don’t see Texas Tech or Texas making it into the SEC, because I see TAMU joining the UGA, UF, etc. pact (no in state P5 competitors allowed).

There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

1
I knew which article you were citing. And guess who it is by, Clay Travis! And guess when it was written? 2015 And guess what the pay model was based on in 2015? 1 school per market because if you had 1 school in the market you got paid by the number of subscriptions in that market whether the were for your school or another as long as they had ESPN.

None of that applies now. What's more Clay Travis didn't have any of his information straight from what transpired during the 2010-2 realignment discussions with Slive. He totally failed to understand what Slive had asked for, and how limited that exclusion was, and then he helped perpetuate a myth about Florida and South Carolina when the reality was quite different.

The pay model we are in now will only pay for actual viewers, is more dependent on ad money, and will be based on content and branding.

2010 to 2016 was a different world than 2017-8 and moving forward. You'd be better off (a) not believing anything that Clay Travis who now takes his checks from FOX has to write or say, and (b) focusing on how to maximize profits in a world less dependent on cable fees an more dependent on actual viewers and in a world that depends on actual viewers having both Texas and Texas A&M would deliver the highest % of actual viewers vs total possible viewers in Texas which delivers the highest ad revenue.

We are going to rue the day we didn't get F.S.U. to control the Florida markets. But then I pointed that out in 2009 before this got started.

As for UT's remarks about the SEC. They've been in talks with us 3 times since '91. They know the SEC helped to destabilize the SWC by taking Arkansas. They know we've taken A&M and Missouri and contributed to the shakiness of the Big 12. They've made a point of speaking ill of the SEC, but they've also stayed in contact as to their value to us. In business many people, even enemies, find associations mutually beneficial and change their rhetoric accordingly. If the SEC is the best fit, and offers them the most familiar schedule and games that matter to their fans, and they are forced to have to make a move, I like our chances. And I also like having the vast majority of what is a 28 million population state.

JR, do you ever see the SEC as having a second chance @ FSU?? I would love to get them & Clemson both!! My Dawgs compete a lot against these teams on the recruiting trail, and I would really like to play them in conference. I would also like to have Auburn in the East Division also, or be a permanent opponent should divisions be scrapped.

As for my team’s in-state nemesis Georgia Tech, I do not believe that they would be a very good fit for the SEC. Even as a rival, I admire and respect what Bobby Dodd did for Tech, but the truth of the matter is this: when Tech decided to streamline their curriculum to what they have currently (this occurred back when Dodd was still coaching, Tech could no longer recruit the typical SEC athlete. If you talk to GTSwagger about this, he will tell you that Tech’s curriculum is even more demanding than what is required of Duke or Stanford athletes!! But the gap between Duke & Georgia Tech is not nearly as bad as the gap between Alabama & Georgia Tech or even Kentucky & Georgia Tech. This is why Tech is in the ACC, and I believe it is the best home for the Yellowjackets as opposed to the SEC. To put it another way, Georgia Tech in the SEC would be worse than Vandy in the SEC. For similar reasons, I also believe that Miami (FL) would be a very bad SEC fit.

That's because Tech's aspiration is to be the MIT of the South. Which would be fine save for the fact that its a public institution. GT's academic policies are the reason Auburn and Clemson create so many of the Peach State's engineers. Hell, its why UGA finally created and Engineering School.

(08-02-2018 06:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 09:16 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:27 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:08 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  Yes they have and they are paying the price for those dumb decisions. Had they taken OU and Oklahoma St, TV ratings might be better, conference payouts might be better and might have forced UT to make a decision.

I have no desire to play A&M and the feelings are obviously mutual but I would love to see my Red Raiders play in the SEC. Having Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, Auburn and Alabama in Lubbock would be epic.

Not sure why 10th is so obsessed with Tech?

The PAC might not be getting the money they want, but they seem quite content with the collection of schools that make up their conference. That and the associated academic prestige (perception) is what they value more than cash, which is what can only be inferred by some of the questionable decisions the conference has made in the realignment era.

They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too.

If it's not the perfect deal then they don't take it. I think their perspective is in part a direct result of their geographic isolation. Perhaps they would do things a little differently if they felt there was a chance of being raided.

Will nobody come out and say it? These are the people who want to secede from the U.S., fight the government on sanctuary cities, backed Ceasar Chavez, and gave us the Summer of Love. They are just plain nuts! And nothing as mundane as manly sports is going to enter into their safety zone and despoil their utopia. And to screw up this badly they all get rewarded so handsomely!

Guys, they're just not like the rest of us and never will be!

Because it would be ascribing entire states/regions with mentalities that only exist really only entire in the metro areas and West of the I-5.

Well Vandiver while what you say is without question true, the fact remains that the political structure represents the rest. Therefore the statement stands for the region, with regrets for the righteous gentiles among them.

(08-02-2018 06:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 11:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 03:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is no damn pact! There never was. It's all internet B.S. and we've explained it on this board too too many times. Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement at that meeting of the presidents that requested no one nominate an in state rival for membership until the two new markets required in our renegotiation clause with ESPN were fulfilled. Afterward he said there would be no restrictions on nominations but that we wouldn't take a new member unless they added to our bottom line.

Why did Slive have to do that? Because Florida and South Carolina both wanted to nominate Florida State and Clemson because those are their money games for acquiring donations and because if realignment led to larger conferences both were afraid they might not be able to guarantee that those rivalry games would continue unless they were in conference.

Clay Travis was responsible for spreading the misinterpretation of that action and then internet posters have furthered the lie.

Texas would bring tremendous value and add to the bottom line significantly. Oklahoma adds a great deal as well. And now that the market subscription fee model is out of vogue everything that drives pay moving forward will be content driven and that means large brands with big followings.

If anything this diminishes the value of additions like Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke and increases the value of Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Florida State because holding those schools would give us monopolies over larger areas which means we would control the highest advertising rates to reach those states.

We would essentially have monopoly on viewers of college football in South Carolina, Georgia (even without Tech because UGA controls 85% of the viewers in that state), Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If we have Texas add that state too. The only state we wouldn't monopolize would be Kentucky. That means nobody advertises in our region on gameday without paying the top rate.

And that works to our advantage for streaming, cable, or any other delivery system out there.

Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

1
I knew which article you were citing. And guess who it is by, Clay Travis! And guess when it was written? 2015 And guess what the pay model was based on in 2015? 1 school per market because if you had 1 school in the market you got paid by the number of subscriptions in that market whether the were for your school or another as long as they had ESPN.

None of that applies now. What's more Clay Travis didn't have any of his information straight from what transpired during the 2010-2 realignment discussions with Slive. He totally failed to understand what Slive had asked for, and how limited that exclusion was, and then he helped perpetuate a myth about Florida and South Carolina when the reality was quite different.

The pay model we are in now will only pay for actual viewers, is more dependent on ad money, and will be based on content and branding.

2010 to 2016 was a different world than 2017-8 and moving forward. You'd be better off (a) not believing anything that Clay Travis who now takes his checks from FOX has to write or say, and (b) focusing on how to maximize profits in a world less dependent on cable fees an more dependent on actual viewers and in a world that depends on actual viewers having both Texas and Texas A&M would deliver the highest % of actual viewers vs total possible viewers in Texas which delivers the highest ad revenue.

We are going to rue the day we didn't get F.S.U. to control the Florida markets. But then I pointed that out in 2009 before this got started.

As for UT's remarks about the SEC. They've been in talks with us 3 times since '91. They know the SEC helped to destabilize the SWC by taking Arkansas. They know we've taken A&M and Missouri and contributed to the shakiness of the Big 12. They've made a point of speaking ill of the SEC, but they've also stayed in contact as to their value to us. In business many people, even enemies, find associations mutually beneficial and change their rhetoric accordingly. If the SEC is the best fit, and offers them the most familiar schedule and games that matter to their fans, and they are forced to have to make a move, I like our chances. And I also like having the vast majority of what is a 28 million population state.

JR, do you ever see the SEC as having a second chance @ FSU?? I would love to get them & Clemson both!! My Dawgs compete a lot against these teams on the recruiting trail, and I would really like to play them in conference. I would also like to have Auburn in the East Division also, or be a permanent opponent should divisions be scrapped.

As for my team’s in-state nemesis Georgia Tech, I do not believe that they would be a very good fit for the SEC. Even as a rival, I admire and respect what Bobby Dodd did for Tech, but the truth of the matter is this: when Tech decided to streamline their curriculum to what they have currently (this occurred back when Dodd was still coaching, Tech could no longer recruit the typical SEC athlete. If you talk to GTSwagger about this, he will tell you that Tech’s curriculum is even more demanding than what is required of Duke or Stanford athletes!! But the gap between Duke & Georgia Tech is not nearly as bad as the gap between Alabama & Georgia Tech or even Kentucky & Georgia Tech. This is why Tech is in the ACC, and I believe it is the best home for the Yellowjackets as opposed to the SEC. To put it another way, Georgia Tech in the SEC would be worse than Vandy in the SEC. For similar reasons, I also believe that Miami (FL) would be a very bad SEC fit.

That's because Tech's aspiration is to be the MIT of the South. Which would be fine save for the fact that its a public institution. GT's academic policies are the reason Auburn and Clemson create so many of the Peach State's engineers. Hell, its why UGA finally created and Engineering School.

Considering that is Tech’s aspiration, I am somewhat surprised that the state of Georgia hasn’t made GT a public related institution, much like how the state of Pennsylvania has done with Penn State & Pittsburgh, although Pittsburgh was formerly a private institution.

(08-03-2018 01:00 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 06:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 11:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 03:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Hey, I will gladly reveal my source: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/texas...ec-072915/

I was on lunch break from work, and couldn’t go into specifics like I planned to tonight, but I do believe JR. But why would Slive not want only one team from Texas?? Couldn’t the Aggies carry DFW, Houston, & San Antonio??? PUF aside, wouldn’t UNC, ND, USC, PSU, etc. be better options than the ‘Horns, who actually take Bobby Bowden’s comments about the SEC as gospel???

1
I knew which article you were citing. And guess who it is by, Clay Travis! And guess when it was written? 2015 And guess what the pay model was based on in 2015? 1 school per market because if you had 1 school in the market you got paid by the number of subscriptions in that market whether the were for your school or another as long as they had ESPN.

None of that applies now. What's more Clay Travis didn't have any of his information straight from what transpired during the 2010-2 realignment discussions with Slive. He totally failed to understand what Slive had asked for, and how limited that exclusion was, and then he helped perpetuate a myth about Florida and South Carolina when the reality was quite different.

The pay model we are in now will only pay for actual viewers, is more dependent on ad money, and will be based on content and branding.

2010 to 2016 was a different world than 2017-8 and moving forward. You'd be better off (a) not believing anything that Clay Travis who now takes his checks from FOX has to write or say, and (b) focusing on how to maximize profits in a world less dependent on cable fees an more dependent on actual viewers and in a world that depends on actual viewers having both Texas and Texas A&M would deliver the highest % of actual viewers vs total possible viewers in Texas which delivers the highest ad revenue.

We are going to rue the day we didn't get F.S.U. to control the Florida markets. But then I pointed that out in 2009 before this got started.

As for UT's remarks about the SEC. They've been in talks with us 3 times since '91. They know the SEC helped to destabilize the SWC by taking Arkansas. They know we've taken A&M and Missouri and contributed to the shakiness of the Big 12. They've made a point of speaking ill of the SEC, but they've also stayed in contact as to their value to us. In business many people, even enemies, find associations mutually beneficial and change their rhetoric accordingly. If the SEC is the best fit, and offers them the most familiar schedule and games that matter to their fans, and they are forced to have to make a move, I like our chances. And I also like having the vast majority of what is a 28 million population state.

JR, do you ever see the SEC as having a second chance @ FSU?? I would love to get them & Clemson both!! My Dawgs compete a lot against these teams on the recruiting trail, and I would really like to play them in conference. I would also like to have Auburn in the East Division also, or be a permanent opponent should divisions be scrapped.

As for my team’s in-state nemesis Georgia Tech, I do not believe that they would be a very good fit for the SEC. Even as a rival, I admire and respect what Bobby Dodd did for Tech, but the truth of the matter is this: when Tech decided to streamline their curriculum to what they have currently (this occurred back when Dodd was still coaching, Tech could no longer recruit the typical SEC athlete. If you talk to GTSwagger about this, he will tell you that Tech’s curriculum is even more demanding than what is required of Duke or Stanford athletes!! But the gap between Duke & Georgia Tech is not nearly as bad as the gap between Alabama & Georgia Tech or even Kentucky & Georgia Tech. This is why Tech is in the ACC, and I believe it is the best home for the Yellowjackets as opposed to the SEC. To put it another way, Georgia Tech in the SEC would be worse than Vandy in the SEC. For similar reasons, I also believe that Miami (FL) would be a very bad SEC fit.

That's because Tech's aspiration is to be the MIT of the South. Which would be fine save for the fact that its a public institution. GT's academic policies are the reason Auburn and Clemson create so many of the Peach State's engineers. Hell, its why UGA finally created and Engineering School.

Considering that is Tech’s aspiration, I am somewhat surprised that the state of Georgia hasn’t made GT a public related institution, much like how the state of Pennsylvania has done with Penn State & Pittsburgh, although Pittsburgh was formerly a private institution.

Georgia Tech is a state funded public university.

GT ain't hurting. While they lack the depth of UGA's fan support, Tech has an affluent alumni and their students show for games. Their attendance figures are quite good by ACC standards. Their recruiting is not top ten status, but they usually do well. I believe they are where they belong. However, they had some good old rivalries in the SEC such as Tennessee.

(08-04-2018 01:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  GT ain't hurting. While they lack the depth of UGA's fan support, Tech has an affluent alumni and their students show for games. Their attendance figures are quite good by ACC standards. Their recruiting is not top ten status, but they usually do well. I believe they are where they belong. However, they had some good old rivalries in the SEC such as Tennessee.

Their rivalry with Auburn was much more intense and had been played continually from 1892 until 1978 with the exception of two years during WWII. It had been the South's oldest football rivalry until Tech joined the ACC and dropped the game as an annual due to scheduling issues. Back when I was a puppy the Wreck Tech parade in Auburn was the biggest pep rally of the year. Bigger than Burn the Bulldog, or the Bama Bash.

As Leonard Posteros once called them the Humble Bumbles were the game the alumni loved the most.

Wreck Tech was born when a top ranked Tech team was to roll into Auburn for an easy win but the alums greased the train tracks from Auburn's Depot to the outskirts of town. The train carrying Tech's players slid for 7 miles to Loachapoka, Alabama. The train couldn't back up because of the grease so the players walked back to Auburn and later that afternoon we beat them. It was just one of several epic pranks played on each other between the two schools.

While heated the rivalry between Auburn and Tech was never incendiary like the one with Alabama, and more congenial than the one with our first cousins at Georgia. I still miss the Tech game.

Where Georgia Tech is hurting is in their athletic budget which routinely runs in the red and which can't come close to matching that of Georgia's.

(08-04-2018 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Where Georgia Tech is hurting is in their athletic budget which routinely runs in the red and which can't come close to matching that of Georgia's.

Concur, however if GT was in the SEC, they still would not come close to UGA's resources and fan support. More money? That would happen given the SEC's disbursements, but expect GT would be spending more also. The comparison needs to be with ACC norms, and "red" is not uncommon. Given GT's student body size, fees collected off student activities revenue would be comparatively less than other state universities---most instances. GT received some nice facilities from the olympic village when the olympics were held a couple of decades ago in Atlanta. Didn't GT just do some major renovations to Bobby Dodd Stadium? They can get 60,000 in there for high profile games. That would be in the upper half of the ACC, but not at the Clemson and FSU standard. Tech would be more like UNC, NCSU, and UVA, in this regard, speaking specifically to fb.

(08-05-2018 02:47 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(08-04-2018 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Where Georgia Tech is hurting is in their athletic budget which routinely runs in the red and which can't come close to matching that of Georgia's.

Concur, however if GT was in the SEC, they still would not come close to UGA's resources and fan support. More money? That would happen given the SEC's disbursements, but expect GT would be spending more also. The comparison needs to be with ACC norms, and "red" is not uncommon. Given GT's student body size, fees collected off student activities revenue would be comparatively less than other state universities---most instances. GT received some nice facilities from the olympic village when the olympics were held a couple of decades ago in Atlanta. Didn't GT just do some major renovations to Bobby Dodd Stadium? They can get 60,000 in there for high profile games. That would be in the upper half of the ACC, but not at the Clemson and FSU standard. Tech would be more like UNC, NCSU, and UVA, in this regard, speaking specifically to fb.

I think Tech was 59th in generated revenue last year. They had been outside of 65th position a couple of years ago show they are showing some improvement. But still they are in the bottom 1/4 of the ACC consistently.

Given ESPN's desires to hold onto Texas, the fact that the Horns with the Aggies deliver everything the SEC and ESPN could hope to hold in Texas, and the fact that the SEC would keep Texas's minor sports local, still add to their coffers, and restore lost rivalries, I still give a high degree of likelihood to the possibility that should anything happen in the Big 12 that Texas and a school most likely of their choosing would become additions for the SEC. We'll see.

(08-30-2018 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given ESPN's desires to hold onto Texas, the fact that the Horns with the Aggies deliver everything the SEC and ESPN could hope to hold in Texas, and the fact that the SEC would keep Texas's minor sports local, still add to their coffers, and restore lost rivalries, I still give a high degree of likelihood to the possibility that should anything happen in the Big 12 that Texas and a school most likely of their choosing would become additions for the SEC. We'll see.

The presence of Texas A&M and Arkansas makes the SEC very appealing, I would think. Let the SEC house the best of the old SWC while the old Big 8 goes to the Big Ten (and perhaps the ACC finishes devouring the old Big East by taking in WVU?)

(08-30-2018 07:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given ESPN's desires to hold onto Texas, the fact that the Horns with the Aggies deliver everything the SEC and ESPN could hope to hold in Texas, and the fact that the SEC would keep Texas's minor sports local, still add to their coffers, and restore lost rivalries, I still give a high degree of likelihood to the possibility that should anything happen in the Big 12 that Texas and a school most likely of their choosing would become additions for the SEC. We'll see.

The presence of Texas A&M and Arkansas makes the SEC very appealing, I would think. Let the SEC house the best of the old SWC while the old Big 8 goes to the Big Ten (and perhaps the ACC finishes devouring the old Big East by taking in WVU?)

We are in complete agreement on this. It restores rivalries and makes geographical sense. If the SEC has taken Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech or T.C.U. they will have taken the cream of the old SWC. If the ACC has taken Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia they will have taken the heart of the Old Big East Football, with Louisville being OBE sub 1. Very oddly what should have been the best of the Old Big 8 in the Big 10 has only been 1 to date, Nebraska. Adding Kansas and Oklahoma would make Nebraska graft more easily.

(08-30-2018 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given ESPN's desires to hold onto Texas, the fact that the Horns with the Aggies deliver everything the SEC and ESPN could hope to hold in Texas, and the fact that the SEC would keep Texas's minor sports local, still add to their coffers, and restore lost rivalries, I still give a high degree of likelihood to the possibility that should anything happen in the Big 12 that Texas and a school most likely of their choosing would become additions for the SEC. We'll see.

The presence of Texas A&M and Arkansas makes the SEC very appealing, I would think. Let the SEC house the best of the old SWC while the old Big 8 goes to the Big Ten (and perhaps the ACC finishes devouring the old Big East by taking in WVU?)

We are in complete agreement on this. It restores rivalries and makes geographical sense. If the SEC has taken Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech or T.C.U. they will have taken the cream of the old SWC. If the ACC has taken Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia they will have taken the heart of the Old Big East Football, with Louisville being OBE sub 1. Very oddly what should have been the best of the Old Big 8 in the Big 10 has only been 1 to date, Nebraska. Adding Kansas and Oklahoma would make Nebraska graft more easily.

Texas Tech should fit right into the SEC. Nothing screams southern hospitality like Lubbock I love the school, but really? They do grow lots of cotton.

(08-31-2018 12:41 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 10:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Given ESPN's desires to hold onto Texas, the fact that the Horns with the Aggies deliver everything the SEC and ESPN could hope to hold in Texas, and the fact that the SEC would keep Texas's minor sports local, still add to their coffers, and restore lost rivalries, I still give a high degree of likelihood to the possibility that should anything happen in the Big 12 that Texas and a school most likely of their choosing would become additions for the SEC. We'll see.

The presence of Texas A&M and Arkansas makes the SEC very appealing, I would think. Let the SEC house the best of the old SWC while the old Big 8 goes to the Big Ten (and perhaps the ACC finishes devouring the old Big East by taking in WVU?)

We are in complete agreement on this. It restores rivalries and makes geographical sense. If the SEC has taken Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech or T.C.U. they will have taken the cream of the old SWC. If the ACC has taken Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia they will have taken the heart of the Old Big East Football, with Louisville being OBE sub 1. Very oddly what should have been the best of the Old Big 8 in the Big 10 has only been 1 to date, Nebraska. Adding Kansas and Oklahoma would make Nebraska graft more easily.

Texas Tech should fit right into the SEC. Nothing screams southern hospitality like Lubbock I love the school, but really? They do grow lots of cotton.

If it were to happen it would be Texas's call. But maybe we'll get lucky and either Oklahoma or Kansas would be the other one.

A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.