(01-17-2019 04:03 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

1. Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989.
2. If conferences go divisionless, or should the playoffs expand, nothing substantive has changed in the way of odds. The SEC West would essentially be the SWC enhanced and the SEC East would be the old core SEC. The two champs meeting in the CCG is essentially the old Sugar Bowl and is your quarter final round of the playoffs.
3. It's not about parity dummy, it's about revenue.
4. If the SEC grows, so too will the Big 10 and for the same reasons. Football first schools in the PAC and ACC would have a lot of thinking to do.

1. Whoa folks, hold the phone! Texas has allegedly been in talks with the SEC since 1989! And absolutely nothing has come of it for 30 years!!

It's actually a shame the SEC hasn't improved its academic profile since 1989 to wrangle the Horns.

2. Fair point, and I agree it looks good on paper. BUT that doesn't change the fact Texas has been more seriously interested in the Pac 10/12 over the years. I'm sorry, but until I read actual facts involving Texas and the SEC, that line-up is what SEC fanboys' dreams are made of.

3. Hmm, being called a bad name unprovoked by a big mean old moderator? That's a first; I'll wear that badge with pride.

What is the "it" you speak of? All I said was having a strong Big XII around makes the sport more interesting. If Texas and Oklahoma want to control their own conference (like they do now), or if they want to move, that will be their call. I was just commenting on the fact that I like having five or more power conferences due to the parity, and that goes beyond football.

4. The Big Ten already regrets expansion. Markets are going to be less and less important. What will happen is big-time schools will start producing their own content and begin controlling their own destinies. Bits are cheap and so is student labor. Media departments are growing by leaps and bounds. You heard it here first, folks!

But we have improved our academic profile. We've added two AAU schools, and now the conference is comprised of all R1 institutions which is something the ACC can't claim.

A&M was in talks with the SEC since late '89. They joined in the 2010-2 realignment.

What I resent is the constant repetition of internet myth as personal knowledge that an event will or will not take place.

And as to the Big 10 they are already talking about their next expansion, and for good reason. Content will be the main motivation for profit moving forward and they need more. They have 6 football brands to market with two more on the cusp. They also need access to recruiting grounds. What does the ACC have? Decent recruiting grounds, but only 1 strong brand right now. You also have 1 usually strong brand that is down. 2 brands that haven't been relevant in 20 years, and not much else.

Given the changes in the pay models, it would be wise if you were more actively in the game for additions as well.

(01-17-2019 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

We were with them from the inception of the SEC Bullet! It wasn't bad for us then because it built us into what we are. It would be a clarifying and redefining moment to have our divisions become what was the Old SEC in the East and an enhanced version of the SWC in the West.

You can't look at the future with an old brain. Conferences moving forward will not only be part of the playoff structure, but also part of a rights leveraging platform. If your division was who you always wanted to, or always did, play and the Conference Championship game is essentially the equivalent of the present Sugar Bowl you have lost nothing but the duplicated overhead expenses of two conference offices, and gained leverage, a better core schedule of schools who add value and travel well, and which are more regional to boot.

Conferences of 20+ worked when the situation was favorable. I've been arguing that the circumstances favor large again for some time.

Rivalries is what makes the SEC valuable. Going to 14 meant playing old rivals less. Getting bigger would make it even more of a problem. I can't believe anyone in the SEC East would prefer Missouri to playing more SEC West schools. I can't believe anyone in the B1G East would prefer Rutgers or Maryland to playing more B1G West schools. And other than BC, I can't imagine anyone in the ACC preferring Pitt and Syracuse over the older ACC schools.

Until South Carolina and Arkansas entered, SEC AD's made their own football schedules. The league had no involvement. The SEC could tell the AD's to fill four dates with conference games they want and the league and TV will fill out the rest, if you get rid of the divisional requirement.

(01-17-2019 04:03 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

1. Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989.
2. If conferences go divisionless, or should the playoffs expand, nothing substantive has changed in the way of odds. The SEC West would essentially be the SWC enhanced and the SEC East would be the old core SEC. The two champs meeting in the CCG is essentially the old Sugar Bowl and is your quarter final round of the playoffs.
3. It's not about parity dummy, it's about revenue.
4. If the SEC grows, so too will the Big 10 and for the same reasons. Football first schools in the PAC and ACC would have a lot of thinking to do.

1. Whoa folks, hold the phone! Texas has allegedly been in talks with the SEC since 1989! And absolutely nothing has come of it for 30 years!!

It's actually a shame the SEC hasn't improved its academic profile since 1989 to wrangle the Horns.

2. Fair point, and I agree it looks good on paper. BUT that doesn't change the fact Texas has been more seriously interested in the Pac 10/12 over the years. I'm sorry, but until I read actual facts involving Texas and the SEC, that line-up is what SEC fanboys' dreams are made of.

3. Hmm, being called a bad name unprovoked by a big mean old moderator? That's a first; I'll wear that badge with pride.

What is the "it" you speak of? All I said was having a strong Big XII around makes the sport more interesting. If Texas and Oklahoma want to control their own conference (like they do now), or if they want to move, that will be their call. I was just commenting on the fact that I like having five or more power conferences due to the parity, and that goes beyond football.

4. The Big Ten already regrets expansion. Markets are going to be less and less important. What will happen is big-time schools will start producing their own content and begin controlling their own destinies. Bits are cheap and so is student labor. Media departments are growing by leaps and bounds. You heard it here first, folks!

SEC's last two additions are AAU members.

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.

2034 is one decade away. That's nothing in the eyes of a business. Why would ESPN want to do anything to alienate the SEC? They wouldn't. If they can profit by the move, and the SEC and those joining are happy. Nothing, not even the contract language of the current contract will stop it.

Besides, taking those 4 would be in keeping with ESPN's strategy for holdings South of Virginia. If the Big 12 breaks up that is the region they want to control.

So Stever the chances of ESPN screwing up a profitable deal in this regard is virtually nil. It would be merely a redirection of a plan they had in 2010 which didn't come to fruition because allegedly part of the participants balked at the last minute. This time around they won't be involved if ESPN makes the play again.

But, as I said originally, if their profits could be enhanced through a different placement of those schools, then it might well be an impediment. But that would require a lot more moving pieces than this. We'll see soon enough, Alston not withstanding.

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.

When they added two, basically the SEC had 14 additional games to sell (7 home games each for Missouri and A&M). I'm pretty sure that's the way any additional expansion would work.

(01-17-2019 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.

2034 is one decade away. That's nothing in the eyes of a business. Why would ESPN want to do anything to alienate the SEC? They wouldn't. If they can profit by the move, and the SEC and those joining are happy. Nothing, not even the contract language of the current contract will stop it.

Besides, taking those 4 would be in keeping with ESPN's strategy for holdings South of Virginia. If the Big 12 breaks up that is the region they want to control.

So Stever the chances of ESPN screwing up a profitable deal in this regard is virtually nil. It would be merely a redirection of a plan they had in 2010 which didn't come to fruition because allegedly part of the participants balked at the last minute. This time around they won't be involved if ESPN makes the play again.

But, as I said originally, if their profits could be enhanced through a different placement of those schools, then it might well be an impediment. But that would require a lot more moving pieces than this. We'll see soon enough, Alston not withstanding.

The thing is, ESPN could very easily have the right to do something first prior to it coming out on the open market. ESPN might not want to do anything to alienate the SEC, but they sure as hell aren't going to allow the SEC to walk all over them, hurting ESPN in the process. What you are talking about would absolutely 100% do that to ESPN.

(01-17-2019 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.

2034 is one decade away. That's nothing in the eyes of a business. Why would ESPN want to do anything to alienate the SEC? They wouldn't. If they can profit by the move, and the SEC and those joining are happy. Nothing, not even the contract language of the current contract will stop it.

Besides, taking those 4 would be in keeping with ESPN's strategy for holdings South of Virginia. If the Big 12 breaks up that is the region they want to control.

So Stever the chances of ESPN screwing up a profitable deal in this regard is virtually nil. It would be merely a redirection of a plan they had in 2010 which didn't come to fruition because allegedly part of the participants balked at the last minute. This time around they won't be involved if ESPN makes the play again.

But, as I said originally, if their profits could be enhanced through a different placement of those schools, then it might well be an impediment. But that would require a lot more moving pieces than this. We'll see soon enough, Alston not withstanding.

The thing is, ESPN could very easily have the right to do something first prior to it coming out on the open market. ESPN might not want to do anything to alienate the SEC, but they sure as hell aren't going to allow the SEC to walk all over them, hurting ESPN in the process. What you are talking about would absolutely 100% do that to ESPN.

Do tell. Please explain how? The issue here is that this possibility just doesn't set well with you. If it was amenable to Texas & Oklahoma and to the SEC and profited ESPN why would they reject it?

(01-17-2019 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.

2034 is one decade away. That's nothing in the eyes of a business. Why would ESPN want to do anything to alienate the SEC? They wouldn't. If they can profit by the move, and the SEC and those joining are happy. Nothing, not even the contract language of the current contract will stop it.

Besides, taking those 4 would be in keeping with ESPN's strategy for holdings South of Virginia. If the Big 12 breaks up that is the region they want to control.

So Stever the chances of ESPN screwing up a profitable deal in this regard is virtually nil. It would be merely a redirection of a plan they had in 2010 which didn't come to fruition because allegedly part of the participants balked at the last minute. This time around they won't be involved if ESPN makes the play again.

But, as I said originally, if their profits could be enhanced through a different placement of those schools, then it might well be an impediment. But that would require a lot more moving pieces than this. We'll see soon enough, Alston not withstanding.

The thing is, ESPN could very easily have the right to do something first prior to it coming out on the open market. ESPN might not want to do anything to alienate the SEC, but they sure as hell aren't going to allow the SEC to walk all over them, hurting ESPN in the process. What you are talking about would absolutely 100% do that to ESPN.

Do tell. Please explain how? The issue here is that this possibility just doesn't set well with you. If it was amenable to Texas & Oklahoma and to the SEC and profited ESPN why would they reject it?

Right now ESPN gets games 16 on from the SEC.... Which obviously includes some mighty great games. If they add 4 teams, and make it where ESPN's package is only starting at 36 even- that's a HUGE loss for ESPN..... Probably at least 10 games have aired on ESPN with the current deal would move to tier 1. You say well they'll be replaced and then some with new content. That's all well and good, but those games are no where good as those 10 games.

(01-17-2019 05:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.

2034 is one decade away. That's nothing in the eyes of a business. Why would ESPN want to do anything to alienate the SEC? They wouldn't. If they can profit by the move, and the SEC and those joining are happy. Nothing, not even the contract language of the current contract will stop it.

Besides, taking those 4 would be in keeping with ESPN's strategy for holdings South of Virginia. If the Big 12 breaks up that is the region they want to control.

So Stever the chances of ESPN screwing up a profitable deal in this regard is virtually nil. It would be merely a redirection of a plan they had in 2010 which didn't come to fruition because allegedly part of the participants balked at the last minute. This time around they won't be involved if ESPN makes the play again.

But, as I said originally, if their profits could be enhanced through a different placement of those schools, then it might well be an impediment. But that would require a lot more moving pieces than this. We'll see soon enough, Alston not withstanding.

The thing is, ESPN could very easily have the right to do something first prior to it coming out on the open market. ESPN might not want to do anything to alienate the SEC, but they sure as hell aren't going to allow the SEC to walk all over them, hurting ESPN in the process. What you are talking about would absolutely 100% do that to ESPN.

Do tell. Please explain how? The issue here is that this possibility just doesn't set well with you. If it was amenable to Texas & Oklahoma and to the SEC and profited ESPN why would they reject it?

Right now ESPN gets games 16 on from the SEC.... Which obviously includes some mighty great games. If they add 4 teams, and make it where ESPN's package is only starting at 36 even- that's a HUGE loss for ESPN..... Probably at least 10 games have aired on ESPN with the current deal would move to tier 1. You say well they'll be replaced and then some with new content. That's all well and good, but those games are no where good as those 10 games.

Well that depends on whether ABC bids on part or all of those T1 rights. Under the old plan ESPN got 56 games - 16 for CBS = 40 games for T2 and T3 selections. If those 4 are added they get 81 games - 32 = 49 games for T2 and T3. So if they want to profit they need to bid on and win those T1 rights for ABC and use them for two dedicated slots on Saturday 2:30 & 7:00 PM, or split them with another network.

In the East you would have Fla/Ala, Ga/Ala, Aub/Ala, Tenn/Ala, Fla/Ga, Fla/Aub, Fla/Tenn, Aub/Tenn, & SoCar/Clemson, Fla/FSU every other year. Plus you would have 9 SEC vs other P conference games which would probably be the games that the T1 would take a hard look at getting.

But they couldn't get them all so ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU would have plenty left to choose from many of which would include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, or Tennessee against Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt and one of the Mississippi schools, probably State.

In the West you have the games between L.S.U., Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss for your T1 plus their 9 P OOC games. Then those brands against TTU, OSU, Missouri, and Arkansas give you the rest.

From a ratings perspective there aren't any regional dogs to speak of with the exception of Vandy in the East which would be an SECN game anyway. There's enough solid games for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and the G5 games are all conference network games anyway.

There's plenty of content there. They would be getting 9 of the top 15 Athletic department in the nation having games with the other 4 brands or regional brands in their divisions. That's a better lineup than you can find anywhere else in college sports, and its true for baseball, softball, and hoops as well.

And I didn't even include the 9 cross divisional games that would be played.

how does vote go for expansion
TexA&M, Ark, MSU & OleMiss, USC, UK, UM
might give no vote

Add any two Big 12 schools to the SEC West with Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, and Miss St. You get some great rivalries and you do away with the protected crossovers as the only two that had any meaning were the ones involving the Alabama schools and now they'd be division mates.

My personal preference for the division of the Big 12 is Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten, Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC, and WVU to the ACC.

Baylor, TCU, Okla St, Kansas St, and Iowa St and Houston, Memphis, Cincy, USF, and UCF to become a rock solid tweener conference.

(01-17-2019 04:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:03 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

1. Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989.
2. If conferences go divisionless, or should the playoffs expand, nothing substantive has changed in the way of odds. The SEC West would essentially be the SWC enhanced and the SEC East would be the old core SEC. The two champs meeting in the CCG is essentially the old Sugar Bowl and is your quarter final round of the playoffs.
3. It's not about parity dummy, it's about revenue.
4. If the SEC grows, so too will the Big 10 and for the same reasons. Football first schools in the PAC and ACC would have a lot of thinking to do.

1. Whoa folks, hold the phone! Texas has allegedly been in talks with the SEC since 1989! And absolutely nothing has come of it for 30 years!!

It's actually a shame the SEC hasn't improved its academic profile since 1989 to wrangle the Horns.

2. Fair point, and I agree it looks good on paper. BUT that doesn't change the fact Texas has been more seriously interested in the Pac 10/12 over the years. I'm sorry, but until I read actual facts involving Texas and the SEC, that line-up is what SEC fanboys' dreams are made of.

3. Hmm, being called a bad name unprovoked by a big mean old moderator? That's a first; I'll wear that badge with pride.

What is the "it" you speak of? All I said was having a strong Big XII around makes the sport more interesting. If Texas and Oklahoma want to control their own conference (like they do now), or if they want to move, that will be their call. I was just commenting on the fact that I like having five or more power conferences due to the parity, and that goes beyond football.

4. The Big Ten already regrets expansion. Markets are going to be less and less important. What will happen is big-time schools will start producing their own content and begin controlling their own destinies. Bits are cheap and so is student labor. Media departments are growing by leaps and bounds. You heard it here first, folks!

SEC's last two additions are AAU members.

Yes, but not enough to wrangle the Horns.

(01-17-2019 09:35 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:03 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

1. Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989.
2. If conferences go divisionless, or should the playoffs expand, nothing substantive has changed in the way of odds. The SEC West would essentially be the SWC enhanced and the SEC East would be the old core SEC. The two champs meeting in the CCG is essentially the old Sugar Bowl and is your quarter final round of the playoffs.
3. It's not about parity dummy, it's about revenue.
4. If the SEC grows, so too will the Big 10 and for the same reasons. Football first schools in the PAC and ACC would have a lot of thinking to do.

1. Whoa folks, hold the phone! Texas has allegedly been in talks with the SEC since 1989! And absolutely nothing has come of it for 30 years!!

It's actually a shame the SEC hasn't improved its academic profile since 1989 to wrangle the Horns.

2. Fair point, and I agree it looks good on paper. BUT that doesn't change the fact Texas has been more seriously interested in the Pac 10/12 over the years. I'm sorry, but until I read actual facts involving Texas and the SEC, that line-up is what SEC fanboys' dreams are made of.

3. Hmm, being called a bad name unprovoked by a big mean old moderator? That's a first; I'll wear that badge with pride.

What is the "it" you speak of? All I said was having a strong Big XII around makes the sport more interesting. If Texas and Oklahoma want to control their own conference (like they do now), or if they want to move, that will be their call. I was just commenting on the fact that I like having five or more power conferences due to the parity, and that goes beyond football.

4. The Big Ten already regrets expansion. Markets are going to be less and less important. What will happen is big-time schools will start producing their own content and begin controlling their own destinies. Bits are cheap and so is student labor. Media departments are growing by leaps and bounds. You heard it here first, folks!

SEC's last two additions are AAU members.

Yes, but not enough to wrangle the Horns.

Its not really an academic profile issue. Its the perception that 1) the SEC cheats more and does less to stop it; and 2) brings in many players who couldn't academically qualify at a Texas. Now whether that perception is factual or not is irrelevant. Its a fact that TPTB at Texas believe it.

(01-17-2019 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 05:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  2034 is one decade away. That's nothing in the eyes of a business. Why would ESPN want to do anything to alienate the SEC? They wouldn't. If they can profit by the move, and the SEC and those joining are happy. Nothing, not even the contract language of the current contract will stop it.

Besides, taking those 4 would be in keeping with ESPN's strategy for holdings South of Virginia. If the Big 12 breaks up that is the region they want to control.

So Stever the chances of ESPN screwing up a profitable deal in this regard is virtually nil. It would be merely a redirection of a plan they had in 2010 which didn't come to fruition because allegedly part of the participants balked at the last minute. This time around they won't be involved if ESPN makes the play again.

But, as I said originally, if their profits could be enhanced through a different placement of those schools, then it might well be an impediment. But that would require a lot more moving pieces than this. We'll see soon enough, Alston not withstanding.

The thing is, ESPN could very easily have the right to do something first prior to it coming out on the open market. ESPN might not want to do anything to alienate the SEC, but they sure as hell aren't going to allow the SEC to walk all over them, hurting ESPN in the process. What you are talking about would absolutely 100% do that to ESPN.

Do tell. Please explain how? The issue here is that this possibility just doesn't set well with you. If it was amenable to Texas & Oklahoma and to the SEC and profited ESPN why would they reject it?

Right now ESPN gets games 16 on from the SEC.... Which obviously includes some mighty great games. If they add 4 teams, and make it where ESPN's package is only starting at 36 even- that's a HUGE loss for ESPN..... Probably at least 10 games have aired on ESPN with the current deal would move to tier 1. You say well they'll be replaced and then some with new content. That's all well and good, but those games are no where good as those 10 games.

Well that depends on whether ABC bids on part or all of those T1 rights. Under the old plan ESPN got 56 games - 16 for CBS = 40 games for T2 and T3 selections. If those 4 are added they get 81 games - 32 = 49 games for T2 and T3. So if they want to profit they need to bid on and win those T1 rights for ABC and use them for two dedicated slots on Saturday 2:30 & 7:00 PM, or split them with another network.

In the East you would have Fla/Ala, Ga/Ala, Aub/Ala, Tenn/Ala, Fla/Ga, Fla/Aub, Fla/Tenn, Aub/Tenn, & SoCar/Clemson, Fla/FSU every other year. Plus you would have 9 SEC vs other P conference games which would probably be the games that the T1 would take a hard look at getting.

But they couldn't get them all so ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU would have plenty left to choose from many of which would include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, or Tennessee against Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt and one of the Mississippi schools, probably State.

In the West you have the games between L.S.U., Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss for your T1 plus their 9 P OOC games. Then those brands against TTU, OSU, Missouri, and Arkansas give you the rest.

From a ratings perspective there aren't any regional dogs to speak of with the exception of Vandy in the East which would be an SECN game anyway. There's enough solid games for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and the G5 games are all conference network games anyway.

There's plenty of content there. They would be getting 9 of the top 15 Athletic department in the nation having games with the other 4 brands or regional brands in their divisions. That's a better lineup than you can find anywhere else in college sports, and its true for baseball, softball, and hoops as well.

And I didn't even include the 9 cross divisional games that would be played.

but if the current contract says ESPN gets everything except for the 15 games or whatever that goes to CBS, why would they allow themselves to get screwed out of those games 16-30 which they already enjoy.

I really think you are doing it based on what you hope happens, and not what is contractually realistic. It's a business for both sides. You say there would still be plenty of content for ESPN. Yes that might be the case, but it's definitely not on the same level as what they currently have with this current deal. Why would ESPN in their right mind agree to something where they instead of getting realistically games 16-50 would get with admittedly 4 more teams 36-80? Depending on how the current ESPN deal reads, we don't know who has the leverage here.

What I could see happen is you get a tier 1 package which would be the top 15 games plus SEC tile game, but then the a package would be a 2nd tier 2 level package.... I don't for a second think that the SEC contractually would be allowed with what ESPN has right now- to bid out the top 35 or whatever games....

(01-17-2019 09:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Add any two Big 12 schools to the SEC West with Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, and Miss St. You get some great rivalries and you do away with the protected crossovers as the only two that had any meaning were the ones involving the Alabama schools and now they'd be division mates.

My personal preference for the division of the Big 12 is Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten, Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC, and WVU to the ACC.

Baylor, TCU, Okla St, Kansas St, and Iowa St and Houston, Memphis, Cincy, USF, and UCF to become a rock solid tweener conference.

My personal preference is for Texas Tech, UT, OU and Oklahoma St to join the SEC.

What the others do is no concern of mine.

If TCU, Baylor, Kansas, K-State, Iowa St and West Virginia want to invite UH, SMU, Cincy, the Florida twins makes no difference to me. The leftovers can join the haters from the AAC and complain about TV $$'s and TV access.

On a side note, I doubt the PAC invites anyone not named in the TexOkla 4.

Another thing not talked about

Are Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, and LSU just going to vote not play Alabama, by far their biggest draw? I don't know, Tony.

(01-17-2019 10:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing not talked about

Are Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, and LSU just going to vote not play Alabama, by far their biggest draw? I don't know, Tony.

They will have UT, Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St take that spot.

I dream of a Texas Tech-Ole Miss match up with both of our hotties running round that campus and tailgating in the Grove.

(01-17-2019 10:59 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing not talked about

Are Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, and LSU just going to vote not play Alabama, by far their biggest draw? I don't know, Tony.

They will have UT, Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St take that spot.

I dream of a Texas Tech-Ole Miss match up with both of our hotties running round that campus and tailgating in the Grove.

You do, that's great. But Texas Tech is not an interesting draw to schools used to playing Alabama and Auburn home and home.

Fan fiction.

(01-17-2019 10:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing not talked about

Are Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, and LSU just going to vote not play Alabama, by far their biggest draw? I don't know, Tony.

Ole Miss's chief rival historically has been L.S.U.. In the early years the biggest rival L.S.U. had was Texas A&M. L.S.U. would love to drop their Florida series and vice versa. L.S.U. would miss Alabama but the A&M draw will be just as big and L.S.U. fans would love being out from under the shadow of Alabama.

Arkansas want's Texas and Oklahoma in the fold. Their fans miss those SWC connections.

Missouri knows them already and would be moving West for the only school that would pitch a fit about not playing Alabama and Auburn annually, Mississippi State. Starkville is only about 70 miles from Tuscaloosa and many Miss State students and athletes party on the strip in Tuscaloosa. They would be fine playing Ole Miss as their only cross divisional game.

So the division would be fairly natural if it were this:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.

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

If you played 9 conference games (8 divisional and 1 cross divisional) then Alabama could still play Texas A&M. Auburn could still play L.S.U.. Miss State would still play Ole Miss, Tennessee could play Oklahoma, and anyone who didn't want a permanent crossover could just rotate.

Heck in the old days if you didn't play a school in the regular season you might meet another SEC foe in a bowl game. Pat Sullivan and Auburn played Archie Manning and Ole Miss in the Gator Bowl.

All change is uncomfortable for somebody, but this change wouldn't have any terrible consequences. The fans would love the closeness of the travel after they experienced it, and playing the neighboring states is especially key for the heart of a hoops or baseball schedule.

(01-17-2019 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing not talked about

Are Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, and LSU just going to vote not play Alabama, by far their biggest draw? I don't know, Tony.

Ole Miss's chief rival historically has been L.S.U.. In the early years the biggest rival L.S.U. had was Texas A&M. L.S.U. would love to drop their Florida series and vice versa. L.S.U. would miss Alabama but the A&M draw will be just as big and L.S.U. fans would love being out from under the shadow of Alabama.

Arkansas want's Texas and Oklahoma in the fold. Their fans miss those SWC connections.

Missouri knows them already and would be moving West for the only school that would pitch a fit about not playing Alabama and Auburn annually, Mississippi State. Starkville is only about 70 miles from Tuscaloosa and many Miss State students and athletes party on the strip in Tuscaloosa. They would be fine playing Ole Miss as their only cross divisional game.

So the division would be fairly natural if it were this:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech.

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

If you played 9 conference games (8 divisional and 1 cross divisional) then Alabama could still play Texas A&M. Auburn could still play L.S.U.. Miss State would still play Ole Miss, Tennessee could play Oklahoma, and anyone who didn't want a permanent crossover could just rotate.

Heck in the old days if you didn't play a school in the regular season you might meet another SEC foe in a bowl game. Pat Sullivan and Auburn played Archie Manning and Ole Miss in the Gator Bowl.

All change is uncomfortable for somebody, but this change wouldn't have any terrible consequences. The fans would love the closeness of the travel after they experienced it, and playing the neighboring states is especially key for the heart of a hoops or baseball schedule.

I think Ole Miss, MSU and LSU would be very unhappy about losing Alabama (and to some extent Auburn).