(10-24-2019 07:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: (10-23-2019 10:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: (10-23-2019 09:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: (10-21-2019 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote: (10-21-2019 08:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: Lots of fascinating info in this thread. I always enjoy reading such material.
One thing worth noting: Jim Delaney, though retiring in 2020, and his successor are not going to "allow" the SEC to grab Texas and/or Oklahoma without a fight. For whatever it's worth ... my mother worked with Delaney in the 1980s when he oversaw the OVC (here in Nashville). My brother attended Indiana University for six years and now teaches at Vanderbilt (he's been there 11 years). So we talk about the "future" Big Ten and SEC on occasion. There are MANY potential future scenarios.
I look forward to seeing it unfold.
There aren't many left that are profitable. The issues as I see them for the Big 10 are simple. They are at a geographical disadvantage with Texas and Oklahoma. They are at a demographical disadvantage with regard to Texas and Oklahoma. They are at a competitive disadvantage with regard to the SEC. They do not offer the balance of sports that Texas and Oklahoma desire (Softball and Baseball lack, women's gymnastics aren't up to par). And the only thing they do offer is an academic association that is free to be made independently of sports. And right now, at least until the SEC signs their new T1 deal the Big 10 has an advantage in media money. However they still lag the SEC in Gross Total Revenue averaged per school and by a significant amount.
Culturally, athletically, proximity wise, and monetarily, the SEC has the advantage on the Big 10 should Texas and Oklahoma desire to leave. The rest of the permutations I've covered.
I'm sure the Big 10 will make a tremendous effort, but they have a plethora of issues to overcome.
Overall, I agree with you. But does Texas want to be in a league with A&M (and vise versa)?
And as to the "profitable" element, maybe OU and UT don't really care. They might rather be in the Big Ten making 10 percent less than if they were in the SEC (for various reasons). But what do I know? I'm just a clueless schmoe.
Not sure I fully agree with you that the Big Ten has a "plethora of issue to overcome" compared to the SEC. Maybe it does. It probably does. But not sure. I've just learned over the years to never underestimate the power/lure of the Big Ten. The academic prestige alone is noteworthy.
It's interesting.
Power and allure got the Big 10 Nebraska and Penn State. Kudos on both, but geographically where else could they have gone? There are those who argue Penn State might have been viable to the ACC, but I don't see that at all. Their fit was clearly better in the Big 10.
I wouldn't say power and allure got the Big 10 Maryland (who was bleeding cash and needed a big payday) or Rutgers which may prove to be an issue should the ACC come open inasmuch as they take a slot that may well have been better spent elsewhere.
The obstacles I refer to are these:
1. Lack of sports fit. Baseball is huge in Oklahoma and Texas as is Women's softball and women's gymnastics. All much better in the SEC due to culture and climate.
2. History of competition. Neither Texas nor Oklahoma have a handful of history with any of the Big 10 powers but they have history with several of the powers of the SEC, not by some great margin but more than a handful of games.
3. Geography means the ability of fans to travel to away games. If they play a divisional schedule (which remains to be scene) then Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Louisiana State, and even Missouri are closer than any of the Big 10 schools. Fan access is a legitimate issue as most schools require premium donations to get away game tickets. Then there are the non revenue sports issues with travel. It is a sizeable chunk of change to travel North that far for non revenue sports whereas volleyball competition In the SEC (while not at the level of the Big 12) is certainly closer and competitive enough for those two schools.
4. Venue quality and size are larger in the SEC on average and UT and OU would benefit from the size of our travel crowds. The baseball facilities and softball facilities (which turn a profit for most SEC baseball venues and a good % of softball venues) are way ahead of anything offered in the Big 10 although Indiana and Ohio State have made great strides, as well as Michigan. The Big 10 has 3 very large football venues but a whole bunch that seat under 50,000. In the SEC the only one averaging under 50,000 regularly is Vanderbilt.
5. Bowl tie ins favor travel for Big 12 members in the SEC a bit better than they would in the Big 10.
6. The replacement for the CIC doesn't help one gain entrance into the AAU. It does help qualified programs within an university share aspects of a grant. But such cooperation exists within the AAU already without having to be members of the same athletic conference.
7. Texas has been in communication with the SEC since 1987, partly out of due diligence, and mostly to keep options open should they be needed. I realize fully that they've done this with the PAC and Big 10, but many may not know how long they've been in communication with the SEC.
8. The best recruiting grounds in the nation are in the Southeast. Texas mines their state quite well, but access to Florida, Georgia, and most particularly Louisiana could help them. The only state in the Big 10 that is comparable is Ohio State, and Pennsylvania would be right there with Alabama and Mississippi.
9. The Texas business model is predicated on playing at least 7 games within the state of Texas and they prefer 8. If they joined the SEC with Texas Tech or Oklahoma (and the RRR remains in Dallas) then with A&M in the mix they have their 7 games in one season and 8 in the next year in and year out. They can't approximate that in the Big 10 unless the Big 10 takes them with either Tech or OU, but either way they'll never have more than 7. And then we get back into the access and travel issues.
So in short Bill, I can see Oklahoma in the Big 10 with Kansas long before I can see Texas there.
And finally there's this:
The Texas Legislature has expressed their desire that Texas, A&M and Tech play each other annually. So for that is a resolution and not a command but the intent is clear. There is really only 1 way for UT to accomplish this in a world where expansion is making scheduling a dicey business. They all need to be in the same conference.
This is why I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma and the SEC gets Texas and Texas Tech.
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech for a Western Division of the SEC meets a great many UT needs and would be a fan and donor pleaser
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt eliminates permanent rival games as a requirement and that is the plus for the SEC.
There is no comparable Big 10 division alignment that gives Texas that much.
In the end it is a simple business decision and one that does not impact their academic standing, which is really quite independent of athletics in spite of what the Big 10 may say.
I just re-read. An outstanding assessment and overview. Should be required reading for realignment enthusiasts. I truly can't counter your points, JRSec. You know this stuff exceedingly well (dare I say to a "Frank The Tank-esque" level).
I realize I'm probably in the minority of those who are a fan of an SEC school but ... I would rather have "the states of N.C. and Virginia" than a duplicate of "the state of Texas" and "the state of Oklahoma."
Now I have many biases related to my wishes (including a family member background and my preference for the East Coast over the Southwest). I just see N.C. State as a sleeping giant in both football and hoops. And NCST would bring with it a blockbuster state (in terms of population, national cache, recruiting talent, cool cities, etc.) to the SEC. VaTech is an established football brand that nicely fits the SEC culture and geography.
Texas just seems like it might not be worth the trouble (that university, though outstanding on so many levels, has a "hyper-pro-me mindset").
Anyway, keep up the fine posts.
The interesting thing about your post Bill was that in 2010 (when Slive had asked for the "gentlemen's agreement" which was actually requested so that South Carolina and Florida did not nominate Clemson and Florida State as they then desired to do, so totally opposite of the reasoning championed by chat room posters) the SEC was set to add 4 schools to get to 16, as was the ACC. We needed 2 new markets to be able to renegotiate our payout from ESPN. And if the ACC had added the schools initially considered for them so that their footprint had expanded with more football brands then what you say you would prefer may well have happened.
The SEC allegedly met with Va Tech officials at the Greenbriar in West Virginia (prompting the Dude's rumors of WVU meeting with the SEC) to discuss possible movement and were supposed to meet with N.C. State, later on. The initial plan was supposedly for Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to round the SEC out at 16 (very different than the original plans in 1991). The ACC was rumored to have been in the running for 3 from the Big 12 and N.D.: Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas from the Big 12 and Notre Dame. Now whether it was 4 or just Texas and Notre Dame is debatable. But either way, that would have given them stronger football brands and possibly 1 more blue blood for hoops. Their revenue would have jumped, their network would have gotten off the ground a year later, and realignment would have taken a much different turn.
Supposedly there were reservations in the old core schools. With the loss of N.C. State and Va Tech their voting block of 7 schools (including Clemson) would have diminished to 5 and the fear was Clemson might side with the football first schools in the voting. So the old core would have lost their political control over the conference.
The move would have been coup for ESPN. They would have expanded the TV market of the SEC and the ACC by over 40 million each which would have netted the conference networks even more, and would have sewn up 75% of the top brands in football for ESPN and goodly share of the top hoops programs.
Remember the GOR had not put in an appearance yet so the schools in the Big 12 were free to move. When the ACC supposedly rejected the deal at the last moment it screwed up a lot of things, including the amount of money that Maryland would have stood to make in the new ACC. It was the last straw for them and having had conversations already with the Big 10 they bolted. Missouri got cold feet initially before deciding to go ahead. It created part of the divisional problems within the SEC. And it really screwed up plans for the corporate network. On top of that it alerted FOX as to how ESPN almost nabbed all of the key product that under their contracts at that time they split 50/50. So no ACC network for more than a few years, and no big payout either were just a couple of the results of that period and that plan.
Then came the GOR's first by the Big 12 for fear more would bolt, and then by the ACC when football first members Florida State and Clemson were temporarily announced on the ESPN crawler as moving to the SEC to take us to 16 anyway.
The rupture was advantageous for Notre Dame who was able to then wangle their partial membership rumored to be contingent upon F.S.U. and Clemson remaining. Promises were made and those two signed the GOR.
Now I use words like alleged, supposedly, and rumored because in the business of college athletic realignment if it didn't go through, it never happened.
But clearly Mr.SEC and Clay Travis spent loads of time hyping and selling the N.C. State and Va Tech moves in an effort to bring support behind their inclusion because SEC fans until that point had only ever considered Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson and Florida State openly and indeed all 4 of those had been on the target list in '92. I don't think either of them would have been that informed if they had not been utilized to sell the idea to the public.
If the ACC loses Va Tech and N.C. State they lose no footprint as both are duplicating existing markets for the ACC. The only hint as to the possible movement of the other schools were Deloss Dodds comments about Texas looking East, and his then regular conversations with Swarbrick at N.D. Kansas and Oklahoma either had no leaks or may not have been a part of it after all. But either way Maryland's departure sent things into a tizzy that we haven't recovered from yet.
Now as to why that deal, or anything like it, will not happen in the future. The pay model in 2010 was the market footprint model. Duplicates didn't really add any value to the conference so those 2 were expendable provided it also profited them to do so.
Today as streaming lurks ready to take over the pay model the value is in brand on brand match ups which drive a national audience. Under that model and at the current payout levels of the SEC Virginia Tech and N.C. State simply don't bring enough value. Texas and Oklahoma bring enough that they still add value even if they bring a tag along.
So now that the ACC is under a GOR until 2037 they won't be involved in future moves to either the SEC or Big 10 unless there is a wholesale reason for 12 of their conference schools to desire to do so. It takes 12 schools to dissolve their conference and end the GOR. So it is a remote possibility at best.
The battle simply will be for the 2 schools which bring a billion plus in economic impact with them, which both are in the top 7 in revenue generated among all FBS programs and which both are national brands with long history.
The question Texas and Oklahoma have to answer is, "Do we move now for an increase in pay, greater access to recruiting, and for what will be a heightened schedule with multiple national audience games to maximize our profits under a new pay model, or do we want to keep the familiar?" There are good reasons to do either. So we wait and see.
That is why many believe that taking a Kansas first could trigger the moves. While I'm ambivalent on that matter, and think that the SEC could do as well with Kansas and Oklahoma as with Texas or Texas Tech, I think the Big 10 is the more likely to pull that trigger first, unless it is what ESPN wants done.
As realignment wraps up there is a perceived need to fix much of what has been broken. Oklahoma reunited with Nebraska, Texas with A&M, and Kansas with Missouri would be a great start to restoration. Right now Kansas]s T3 and Texas's T3 rights are tied up with ESPN. Oklahoma will renew soon and it will be interesting to see if theirs remain with FOX. And then there are the state legislatures who are concerned for 2nd state schools. Does OU have to safeguard OSU or not? There are two schools of thought on that and they do not reconcile. Does Texas need, or want to, take care of Tech. I see this one as the most likely to be true.
So what happens if ESPN wants Texas and Kansas in the SEC for their own network reasons? After all they do write the check. Who would OU take with them to the Big 10? Would Colorado head to the Big 10 with Oklahoma? Would the Big 10 take Iowa State with OU even if it didn't really earn them more? These seem less likely, but not quite out of the realm of possibility. Or does the PAC and Big 12 dissolve and reform a more affluent new conference with the best of both?
It will be fun to see how all of this plays out.
Who knows we may wind up with even a wilder finish, involving more moving parts.
OU and UT to the SEC is quite possible, but would it be good for the sport? Would it be any different if they went Big 10? No.
So Bill, we have conference commissioners thinking one set of outcomes, networks thinking another set of outcomes, the kingpins trying to negotiate the best possible outcome for themselves and quite possibly other state schools. And we are staring down a P4 of ~ 16 schools each but with the SEC and Big 10 way ahead in earnings over the PAC and ACC, or possibly a P3 of 20 schools each but with much more competitive and brand balance.
So soak that up and tell me what you think.
/
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
