(08-04-2019 10:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  The truth is that Texas and Oklahoma don't need the SEC or the B1G to make money. In fact either conference might actually limit their ability to grow their own income.
The SEC or the B1G would love to have either because it would lift the income of all of their own schools while limiting to opportunities of other conferences. Greed, pure and simple.

Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 10:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  The truth is that Texas and Oklahoma don't need the SEC or the B1G to make money. In fact either conference might actually limit their ability to grow their own income.
The SEC or the B1G would love to have either because it would lift the income of all of their own schools while limiting to opportunities of other conferences. Greed, pure and simple.

Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 10:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  The truth is that Texas and Oklahoma don't need the SEC or the B1G to make money. In fact either conference might actually limit their ability to grow their own income.
The SEC or the B1G would love to have either because it would lift the income of all of their own schools while limiting to opportunities of other conferences. Greed, pure and simple.

Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

Oklahoma overcomes the Texas access problem if they join the SEC. In some ways since the Sooners are the last ones to define a Texas football season they have far more leverage than Arkansas ever did, especially as long as A&M remains estranged.

(08-04-2019 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 10:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  The truth is that Texas and Oklahoma don't need the SEC or the B1G to make money. In fact either conference might actually limit their ability to grow their own income.
The SEC or the B1G would love to have either because it would lift the income of all of their own schools while limiting to opportunities of other conferences. Greed, pure and simple.

Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

Oklahoma overcomes the Texas access problem if they join the SEC. In some ways since the Sooners are the last ones to define a Texas football season they have far more leverage than Arkansas ever did, especially as long as A&M remains estranged.

True. But the question remains, does Oklahoma want the SEC? It’s a cultural fit and they’d make more money. But going through a slate of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, etc is really difficult if your goal is to make it to the CFP every year. Will they settle for a Citrus, Outback or Liberty bowl as a consolation prize? Would they become another Arkansas which used to be a power and it’s now an irrelevant program? Would they take A&M’s place as a program that has top recruiting classes, great fan support and lots of re$ources but can’t even win a division title? Those are some questions OU administrators and fans have to ask if they want to give up an easier path to the CFP in the Big XII over more money in the SEC or the Big Ten.

(08-04-2019 03:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 10:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  The truth is that Texas and Oklahoma don't need the SEC or the B1G to make money. In fact either conference might actually limit their ability to grow their own income.
The SEC or the B1G would love to have either because it would lift the income of all of their own schools while limiting to opportunities of other conferences. Greed, pure and simple.

Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

Oklahoma overcomes the Texas access problem if they join the SEC. In some ways since the Sooners are the last ones to define a Texas football season they have far more leverage than Arkansas ever did, especially as long as A&M remains estranged.

True. But the question remains, does Oklahoma want the SEC? It’s a cultural fit and they’d make more money. But going through a slate of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, etc is really difficult if your goal is to make it to the CFP every year. Will they settle for a Citrus, Outback or Liberty bowl as a consolation prize? Would they become another Arkansas which used to be a power and it’s now an irrelevant program? Would they take A&M’s place as a program that has top recruiting classes, great fan support and lots of re$ources but can’t even win a division title? Those are some questions OU administrators and fans have to ask if they want to give up an easier path to the CFP in the Big XII over more money in the SEC or the Big Ten.

That's all pretty lame. A&M would be their chief rival. They would have the same recruiting grounds with a game in Texas every year even if the Horns refused to play them too, and Alabama and Auburn would move to the East. They'd have to beat A&M and Arkansas and L.S.U. to get to the CCG. That's not much more difficult than what they have now with Texas, West Virginia and T.C.U.. The softball, baseball, and gymnastics are all a better fit too.

If Texas wanted in fine. If not they keep OSU.

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 10:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  The truth is that Texas and Oklahoma don't need the SEC or the B1G to make money. In fact either conference might actually limit their ability to grow their own income.
The SEC or the B1G would love to have either because it would lift the income of all of their own schools while limiting to opportunities of other conferences. Greed, pure and simple.

Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

OU was relevant in the Big 8 for years without being tied to UT minus the RRR.

OU is Texas biggest rival with a$m next and then Texas Tech and Arkansas.

(08-04-2019 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

Oklahoma overcomes the Texas access problem if they join the SEC. In some ways since the Sooners are the last ones to define a Texas football season they have far more leverage than Arkansas ever did, especially as long as A&M remains estranged.

True. But the question remains, does Oklahoma want the SEC? It’s a cultural fit and they’d make more money. But going through a slate of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, etc is really difficult if your goal is to make it to the CFP every year. Will they settle for a Citrus, Outback or Liberty bowl as a consolation prize? Would they become another Arkansas which used to be a power and it’s now an irrelevant program? Would they take A&M’s place as a program that has top recruiting classes, great fan support and lots of re$ources but can’t even win a division title? Those are some questions OU administrators and fans have to ask if they want to give up an easier path to the CFP in the Big XII over more money in the SEC or the Big Ten.

That's all pretty lame. A&M would be their chief rival. They would have the same recruiting grounds with a game in Texas every year even if the Horns refused to play them too, and Alabama and Auburn would move to the East. They'd have to beat A&M and Arkansas and L.S.U. to get to the CCG. That's not much more difficult than what they have now with Texas, West Virginia and T.C.U.. The softball, baseball, and gymnastics are all a better fit too.

If Texas wanted in fine. If not they keep OSU.

OU will never accept a$m as their sloppy seconds to replace UT.

The state of Texas has 3 power schools who belong in a Power conference. Oklahoma has 2. I hope the Texoma 4 end up in the SEC.

(08-04-2019 08:43 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

Oklahoma overcomes the Texas access problem if they join the SEC. In some ways since the Sooners are the last ones to define a Texas football season they have far more leverage than Arkansas ever did, especially as long as A&M remains estranged.

True. But the question remains, does Oklahoma want the SEC? It’s a cultural fit and they’d make more money. But going through a slate of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, etc is really difficult if your goal is to make it to the CFP every year. Will they settle for a Citrus, Outback or Liberty bowl as a consolation prize? Would they become another Arkansas which used to be a power and it’s now an irrelevant program? Would they take A&M’s place as a program that has top recruiting classes, great fan support and lots of re$ources but can’t even win a division title? Those are some questions OU administrators and fans have to ask if they want to give up an easier path to the CFP in the Big XII over more money in the SEC or the Big Ten.

That's all pretty lame. A&M would be their chief rival. They would have the same recruiting grounds with a game in Texas every year even if the Horns refused to play them too, and Alabama and Auburn would move to the East. They'd have to beat A&M and Arkansas and L.S.U. to get to the CCG. That's not much more difficult than what they have now with Texas, West Virginia and T.C.U.. The softball, baseball, and gymnastics are all a better fit too.

If Texas wanted in fine. If not they keep OSU.

OU will never accept a$m as their sloppy seconds to replace UT.

The state of Texas has 3 power schools who belong in a Power conference. Oklahoma has 2. I hope the Texoma 4 end up in the SEC.

So who would they rather have? Minnesota? Wisconsin? Nebraska?

Don't sweat the small stuff. I like the odds of at least the Texas pair if movement occurs. Personally I think Texa-homa would be a strong content move, I'm just not sure the networks will be on board. We'll see.

The Dude of WV is claiming he has a FOIA document in hand that proves the new GOR has already been signed. That's a hoot! There is no reason for it to be signed 5 years ahead of time, and certainly no way that's available by FOIA already. I guess his hit revenue is running low.

(08-04-2019 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 03:22 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Oklahoma has far more limited resources and potential than Texas. All one has to do is look at the Oklahoma City Thunder and the recent statements from Sam Presti about working with a small market. This is evident in the large gap in 3rd tier revenue from OU to Texas and to the B1G schools, and soon the SEC schools. Oklahoma is simply not large enough a market, and not part of a strong enough package to maximize revenue.

But Oklahoma's issues go deeper than that. It is part of the plain states which are not growing, and youth peaked. Long term the survival of the school as a top tier public university requires more out of state applicants, and not just Texas. This requires a repositioning.

Now I separate Texas, because none of the above issues applies in Austin, where they are impacted and standards are raising for applicants, and both the state and the revenue are growing in all areas. You cannot lump Texas and Oklahoma together, their situations are not at all analogous.

OU is close to DFW (about 2.5 hours, population 7.5 million and growing) that’s where their alumni and fans live. I would say OU has more fans than A&M (I don’t have any data that backs me up but I’m basing it on gear and car stickers) here in DFW.

OU has to be tied to UT in order to stay relevant. They only have to look at Arkansas which once upon a time was Texas biggest rival.

Oklahoma overcomes the Texas access problem if they join the SEC. In some ways since the Sooners are the last ones to define a Texas football season they have far more leverage than Arkansas ever did, especially as long as A&M remains estranged.

True. But the question remains, does Oklahoma want the SEC? It’s a cultural fit and they’d make more money. But going through a slate of Alabama, Auburn, LSU, A&M, etc is really difficult if your goal is to make it to the CFP every year. Will they settle for a Citrus, Outback or Liberty bowl as a consolation prize? Would they become another Arkansas which used to be a power and it’s now an irrelevant program? Would they take A&M’s place as a program that has top recruiting classes, great fan support and lots of re$ources but can’t even win a division title? Those are some questions OU administrators and fans have to ask if they want to give up an easier path to the CFP in the Big XII over more money in the SEC or the Big Ten.

That's all pretty lame. A&M would be their chief rival. They would have the same recruiting grounds with a game in Texas every year even if the Horns refused to play them too, and Alabama and Auburn would move to the East. They'd have to beat A&M and Arkansas and L.S.U. to get to the CCG. That's not much more difficult than what they have now with Texas, West Virginia and T.C.U.. The softball, baseball, and gymnastics are all a better fit too.

If Texas wanted in fine. If not they keep OSU.

Okies and Arkies really don't like one another. They might have history with A&M but if I had to pick a natural rivalry to form with them in the SEC it'd be the Hogs.

OU and KU are really the perfect western pairing for the SEC

New markets, blue blood basketball and football, no unnecessary political Tagalongs, it really has it all as a two team combo.

(08-04-2019 11:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU and KU are really the perfect western pairing for the SEC

New markets, blue blood basketball and football, no unnecessary political Tagalongs, it really has it all as a two team combo.

The quite satisfying aspect of that duo would be that Texas and Tech would be left with the options of the Big 10 or PAC if they were to travel as a duo. Have you considered that if we didn't have to take Oklahoma State, that a duo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be essentially a domination of the 11 million in the DFW metroplex?

The SEC has many options to work with. We'll make a play for OU and UT. But we have OU and KU, and OU and OSU, and possibly even OU & TCU as options. Of course UT and TTU will remain an option and I suppose if the Texas politicians don't get too involved even UT & TCU might be an option. We'll see.

OU works as the partner for several good pairing possibilities

My money is still that they are the first to leave the conference out of frustration over money and lack of competitiveness in the playoff

(08-04-2019 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU and KU are really the perfect western pairing for the SEC

New markets, blue blood basketball and football, no unnecessary political Tagalongs, it really has it all as a two team combo.

The quite satisfying aspect of that duo would be that Texas and Tech would be left with the options of the Big 10 or PAC if they were to travel as a duo. Have you considered that if we didn't have to take Oklahoma State, that a duo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be essentially a domination of the 11 million in the DFW metroplex?

The SEC has many options to work with. We'll make a play for OU and UT. But we have OU and KU, and OU and OSU, and possibly even OU & TCU as options. Of course UT and TTU will remain an option and I suppose if the Texas politicians don't get too involved even UT & TCU might be an option. We'll see.

The only options the SEC have are the ones that ESPN will pay for.

(08-05-2019 04:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU and KU are really the perfect western pairing for the SEC

New markets, blue blood basketball and football, no unnecessary political Tagalongs, it really has it all as a two team combo.

The quite satisfying aspect of that duo would be that Texas and Tech would be left with the options of the Big 10 or PAC if they were to travel as a duo. Have you considered that if we didn't have to take Oklahoma State, that a duo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be essentially a domination of the 11 million in the DFW metroplex?

The SEC has many options to work with. We'll make a play for OU and UT. But we have OU and KU, and OU and OSU, and possibly even OU & TCU as options. Of course UT and TTU will remain an option and I suppose if the Texas politicians don't get too involved even UT & TCU might be an option. We'll see.

The only options the SEC have are the ones that ESPN will pay for.

Really? We've reached a point in the transition in sports broadcasting where the ESPN current contract could be bought out. They don't have the teeth they had 7 years ago. And if their mainline product bails on them they're done. Furthermore, if a move would profit the SEC with another company I don't think ESPN will continue to go down the path of telling us who to take by telling us who they would pay for. There be legal dragons there.

Cord cutting is accelerating and the model that ESPN represents is under duress. Last year the SECN was flat. The BTN hasn't reported its NET worth in over 2 years following a year in which they were devalued 170 million. It's simply not a good time to be betting on subscription fees from T3 material.

The moves in the future will be to all P scheduling but for market reasons. T3 material will be essentially eliminated by moving to an all P schedule and the notion of T3 rights will simply disappear along with it. Everything will be T1 and T2 and marketed across an array of carriers and time slots. And yes this means the time of Conference Networks as we know them now will be very short lived.

Those conferences with the greatest number of brands will be more rewarded and those who don't have breadth in branding for football won't. ESPN can't afford to piss the SEC off the way they did the Big 10. They will adopt the attitude that what's good for the SEC is good for Disney whether that is ESPN or ABC and that will happen whether there is more expansion or not. Heretofore, it has been what is good for ESPN is good for the SEC / ACC. How has that worked out for either of us? Live sports sells advertising and live sports with a national draw sells it exponentially better. The power with more players entering the carrier game shifts to the schools. When NBC wanted 1 game a week and CBS did as well ESPN ruled the roost. FOX's purchase of the Big 10 rocked that world. Now that other major companies are expressing interest ESPN has lost its leverage. Conferences liked and needed ESPN when they could offer so many more time slots and channel options all with guaranteed subscription fees. Now that they don't have a monopoly on that approach they are feeling the pinch. They aren't going away anytime soon, but neither does the mouse have the teeth it once had.

And their constant pushing of a corporate world view has, is, and will continue to tick off a lot of folks. And that too will eventually bite them in the butt.

(08-05-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-05-2019 04:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU and KU are really the perfect western pairing for the SEC

New markets, blue blood basketball and football, no unnecessary political Tagalongs, it really has it all as a two team combo.

The quite satisfying aspect of that duo would be that Texas and Tech would be left with the options of the Big 10 or PAC if they were to travel as a duo. Have you considered that if we didn't have to take Oklahoma State, that a duo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be essentially a domination of the 11 million in the DFW metroplex?

The SEC has many options to work with. We'll make a play for OU and UT. But we have OU and KU, and OU and OSU, and possibly even OU & TCU as options. Of course UT and TTU will remain an option and I suppose if the Texas politicians don't get too involved even UT & TCU might be an option. We'll see.

The only options the SEC have are the ones that ESPN will pay for.

Really? We've reached a point in the transition in sports broadcasting where the ESPN current contract could be bought out. They don't have the teeth they had 7 years ago. And if their mainline product bails on them they're done. Furthermore, if a move would profit the SEC with another company I don't think ESPN will continue to go down the path of telling us who to take by telling us who they would pay for. There be legal dragons there.

Cord cutting is accelerating and the model that ESPN represents is under duress. Last year the SECN was flat. The BTN hasn't reported its NET worth in over 2 years following a year in which they were devalued 170 million. It's simply not a good time to be betting on subscription fees from T3 material.

The moves in the future will be to all P scheduling but for market reasons. T3 material will be essentially eliminated by moving to an all P schedule and the notion of T3 rights will simply disappear along with it. Everything will be T1 and T2 and marketed across an array of carriers and time slots. And yes this means the time of Conference Networks as we know them now will be very short lived.

Those conferences with the greatest number of brands will be more rewarded and those who don't have breadth in branding for football won't. ESPN can't afford to piss the SEC off the way they did the Big 10. They will adopt the attitude that what's good for the SEC is good for Disney whether that is ESPN or ABC and that will happen whether there is more expansion or not. Heretofore, it has been what is good for ESPN is good for the SEC / ACC. How has that worked out for either of us? Live sports sells advertising and live sports with a national draw sells it exponentially better. The power with more players entering the carrier game shifts to the schools. When NBC wanted 1 game a week and CBS did as well ESPN ruled the roost. FOX's purchase of the Big 10 rocked that world. Now that other major companies are expressing interest ESPN has lost its leverage. Conferences liked and needed ESPN when they could offer so many more time slots and channel options all with guaranteed subscription fees. Now that they don't have a monopoly on that approach they are feeling the pinch. They aren't going away anytime soon, but neither does the mouse have the teeth it once had.

And their constant pushing of a corporate world view has, is, and will continue to tick off a lot of folks. And that too will eventually bite them in the butt.

Teeth or no teeth, they still hold a signed contract, and I doubt very seriously that they will put up with the tail trying to wag the dog.

I'm sure Texas prefers the status quo. But ....

If Oklahoma makes a move, then they'd do something. But it wouldn't be something as pedantic as join another conference.

They'd look to make a statement ...

They'd go independent in football, with a Notre Dame arrangement with the ACC to house their other sports.

This allows them to think they're as special as Notre Dame, while at the same time, give them 7 spots to schedule whoever the heck they wanted to schedule. Plus put them in a conference with academic peers, that has minor sports excelling in the NCAA.


Big Ten? And be forced to play Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, and Illinois? With only 4 spots to schedule schools from Texas, plus heavy weights, plus traditional rivals? No way.

SEC? And be forced to play Vandy, Mizzou, Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina? With only 4 spots to schedule schools from Texas, plus heavy weights, plus traditional rivals? Hell no.

PAC 12? Are you joking?


It's BIG XII, or Independent with the ACC and an ND deal.

Lock to the PAC 12.

(08-05-2019 11:55 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  I'm sure Texas prefers the status quo. But ....

If Oklahoma makes a move, then they'd do something. But it wouldn't be something as pedantic as join another conference.

They'd look to make a statement ...

They'd go independent in football, with a Notre Dame arrangement with the ACC to house their other sports.

This allows them to think they're as special as Notre Dame, while at the same time, give them 7 spots to schedule whoever the heck they wanted to schedule. Plus put them in a conference with academic peers, that has minor sports excelling in the NCAA.


Big Ten? And be forced to play Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, and Illinois? With only 4 spots to schedule schools from Texas, plus heavy weights, plus traditional rivals? No way.

SEC? And be forced to play Vandy, Mizzou, Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina? With only 4 spots to schedule schools from Texas, plus heavy weights, plus traditional rivals? Hell no.

PAC 12? Are you joking?


It's BIG XII, or Independent with the ACC and an ND deal.

I don't see why the ACC is even being considered as a possibility for UT. If OU leaves and UT FB goes independent, the Longhorns can just keep their non-FB sports in what remains of the Big 12.

(08-04-2019 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-04-2019 11:36 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU and KU are really the perfect western pairing for the SEC

New markets, blue blood basketball and football, no unnecessary political Tagalongs, it really has it all as a two team combo.

The quite satisfying aspect of that duo would be that Texas and Tech would be left with the options of the Big 10 or PAC if they were to travel as a duo. Have you considered that if we didn't have to take Oklahoma State, that a duo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. would be essentially a domination of the 11 million in the DFW metroplex?

The SEC has many options to work with. We'll make a play for OU and UT. But we have OU and KU, and OU and OSU, and possibly even OU & TCU as options. Of course UT and TTU will remain an option and I suppose if the Texas politicians don't get too involved even UT & TCU might be an option. We'll see.

I guess Texas Tech and TCU should disband football so the heavy weights can have a conference to themselves. I can pick up a Alabama t-shirt at Wal-Mart and become a message board big shot.

For what it's worth, the Texas politicians won't need to get involved because they understand the value of the having the 3rd largest supported University in the state of Texas reside in a power conference. They certainly won't waste time on small private schools after the mess Baylor created for the Big 12.

The state of Texas has 3 public power 5 schools and it should stay that way.

If that’s true then name one P4 conference that will take Texas Tech as a stand-alone member