(06-20-2020 03:19 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 12:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would the Big 12 want to allow football independent UT to leave its other sports in the conference? I understand why Texas may want that, but what's in it for Kansas State and others?

For reasons that many have expressed here, it seems to me that Texas needs the Big 12. And I don't buy into the idea expressed often here and in the media that Texas would be welcomed into every other conference with open arms. I believe that Texas needs to do whatever is necessary to keep Oklahoma from leaving.

I would take the exact opposite view, Texas could well survive in another environment, but Oklahoma would have a hard time maintaining the same income level if they were separated from Texas.

If OU joins the Big10 or the SEC , you really think they would have a hard time MAINTAINING their current income level? Have you seen the projections of what teams in the Big10 and SEC will be making with their new contracts? Care to explain that to this old country boy.

While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

(06-20-2020 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 03:19 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 12:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would the Big 12 want to allow football independent UT to leave its other sports in the conference? I understand why Texas may want that, but what's in it for Kansas State and others?

For reasons that many have expressed here, it seems to me that Texas needs the Big 12. And I don't buy into the idea expressed often here and in the media that Texas would be welcomed into every other conference with open arms. I believe that Texas needs to do whatever is necessary to keep Oklahoma from leaving.

I would take the exact opposite view, Texas could well survive in another environment, but Oklahoma would have a hard time maintaining the same income level if they were separated from Texas.

If OU joins the Big10 or the SEC , you really think they would have a hard time MAINTAINING their current income level? Have you seen the projections of what teams in the Big10 and SEC will be making with their new contracts? Care to explain that to this old country boy.

While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

(06-20-2020 07:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 03:19 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 12:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why would the Big 12 want to allow football independent UT to leave its other sports in the conference? I understand why Texas may want that, but what's in it for Kansas State and others?

For reasons that many have expressed here, it seems to me that Texas needs the Big 12. And I don't buy into the idea expressed often here and in the media that Texas would be welcomed into every other conference with open arms. I believe that Texas needs to do whatever is necessary to keep Oklahoma from leaving.

I would take the exact opposite view, Texas could well survive in another environment, but Oklahoma would have a hard time maintaining the same income level if they were separated from Texas.

If OU joins the Big10 or the SEC , you really think they would have a hard time MAINTAINING their current income level? Have you seen the projections of what teams in the Big10 and SEC will be making with their new contracts? Care to explain that to this old country boy.

While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

24 million more than they made last year.

(06-20-2020 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 03:19 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 01:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would take the exact opposite view, Texas could well survive in another environment, but Oklahoma would have a hard time maintaining the same income level if they were separated from Texas.

If OU joins the Big10 or the SEC , you really think they would have a hard time MAINTAINING their current income level? Have you seen the projections of what teams in the Big10 and SEC will be making with their new contracts? Care to explain that to this old country boy.

While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

24 million more than they made last year.

And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 03:19 PM)texoma Wrote:  If OU joins the Big10 or the SEC , you really think they would have a hard time MAINTAINING their current income level? Have you seen the projections of what teams in the Big10 and SEC will be making with their new contracts? Care to explain that to this old country boy.

While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

24 million more than they made last year.

And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

(06-21-2020 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

24 million more than they made last year.

And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

There always has been consensus the the "value" of the Big 12 was centered in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and coming in 4th place, West Virginia.
By the same token the value of the ACC is centered with Carolina, Duke, UVa and Florida State.
I find it interesting that the SEC, SEC, SEC cheerleader keeps putting Carolina, UVa and Duke into the Big Ten in multiple scenarios, Florida State and Clemson into the Big 12, while only claiming the "market" additions of NC State and Virginia Tech for the SEC.
Curious!

(06-21-2020 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 04:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  While Texas' income might not suffer much from the loss of Olahoma, I think the rest of the Big 12 would. I doubt they could renew their media deal at the current level, much less get a bump to help keep pace with the SEC. And, if OU were to go to the SEC, they may well take another B12 with them, making the value of the remaining schools that much less.

But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

24 million more than they made last year.

And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

Which for me begs the question: If OU and Kansas go to the SEC, I don't expect the NCAA would revoke the Big 12's autonomous status; but would the media and the public still consider them a "power conference" with only Texas as their tentpole?

(06-21-2020 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:08 PM)texoma Wrote:  But Oklahoma's income would not only be maintained, but it would increase, most likely by a lot.

24 million more than they made last year.

And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

Which for me begs the question: If OU and Kansas go to the SEC, I don't expect the NCAA would revoke the Big 12's autonomous status; but would the media and the public still consider them a "power conference" with only Texas as their tentpole?

No. And that's why Texas would have to make a decision at that time and with the SEC comfortably at 16 and Aggie dancing a jig I think Texas at that point would seek an independent deal. IMO that's the only set of circumstances that could open the ACC up as a potentiality for Texas. They would probably still insist upon friends. So Baylor and T.C.U. join in full and they come in as a Partial.

At that point I believe that the ACC should insist upon 6 conference games from both Texas and N.D. Otherwise Texas would insist upon playing T.C.U. and Baylor annually leaving only 3 for old line ACC schools. But by having 2 Texas schools in which they would play they get 6 home games and if they rotate those two Texas schools home and away that gives them at least 8 games in Texas annually (6 home, 1 home/away ACC game, and the RRR which would continue in Dallas) and possibly a 9th if they play Aggie again. That would placate Texas for a long time.

The ACC now has 16 full members and 2 partials. If the Horns insist on Tech as well then Wake could become a partial and Tech could join in full. Then you would have 16 full and 3 partials.

A counter question would be would the SEC be willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to keep the Sooners out of the Big Ten.

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is would the SEC West schools be enticed by ESPN to sign long term series with Independent Texas (who ESPN also owns the tv rights for)?

If ESPN can’t guide the Horns into the SEC this would be the next best thing.

Wow so if that raid happened and the Big 12 lost KU, ou, bu and TCU.. Big 12 would then add UH, SMU, Memphis, Cincinnatti and Tulane?

Tech, SMU, UH, TU, ISU, KSU, UM, UC, OSU and WV

Texas goes Independent in football, remaining sports in the new Big 12? Texas then plays 6 teams from Big 12, 1 vs ou, 2 vs G5, 1 vs aggy and 2 P5 games OOC (outside the Big12)?

(06-21-2020 01:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A counter question would be would the SEC be willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to keep the Sooners out of the Big Ten.

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is would the SEC West schools be enticed by ESPN to sign long term series with Independent Texas (who ESPN also owns the tv rights for)?

If ESPN can’t guide the Horns into the SEC this would be the next best thing.

Been said that the SEC would not want anything to do with osu.. even if to bring in ou

(06-21-2020 01:10 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A counter question would be would the SEC be willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to keep the Sooners out of the Big Ten.

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is would the SEC West schools be enticed by ESPN to sign long term series with Independent Texas (who ESPN also owns the tv rights for)?

If ESPN can’t guide the Horns into the SEC this would be the next best thing.

Been said that the SEC would not want anything to do with osu.. even if to bring in ou

Said by whom? When the pair was turned down as a Boren counter offer in 2010-1 the SEC had to add two from different markets and A&M was on board and we weren't adding 3 or 4. So it was definitely a no go. If it meant cutting Texas theoretically off from considering the Big 10 we might take both. It clearly would not be one of the SEC's preferences, but landing just Oklahoma or just Texas means no advantage is gained by the Big 10 should they get the other. Those kinds of considerations are game time calls. I'm sure the SEC would rather take OU alone or with Kansas, or perhaps even another Texas school like T.C.U. before they took both Oklahoma schools. But until you are in the moment and know what your opposition is trying to do, then you can't ever say never.

I promise you anything you hear on message boards or read from beat writers or bloggers that begins with "X will never do Y" is 99.9% of the time B.S.

Business arrangements are as fluid as the marketplace and most executives will never say never. What they will almost always say is "as things stand now we might consider X or Y, and would rather avoid A or B." They don't say "never" because they always want to give all options some wiggle room.

(06-21-2020 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:10 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A counter question would be would the SEC be willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to keep the Sooners out of the Big Ten.

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is would the SEC West schools be enticed by ESPN to sign long term series with Independent Texas (who ESPN also owns the tv rights for)?

If ESPN can’t guide the Horns into the SEC this would be the next best thing.

Been said that the SEC would not want anything to do with osu.. even if to bring in ou

Said by whom? When the pair was turned down as a Boren counter offer in 2010-1 the SEC had to add two from different markets and A&M was on board and we weren't adding 3 or 4. So it was definitely a no go. If it meant cutting Texas theoretically off from considering the Big 10 we might take both. It clearly would not be one of the SEC's preferences, but landing just Oklahoma or just Texas means no advantage is gained by the Big 10 should they get the other. Those kinds of considerations are game time calls. I'm sure the SEC would rather take OU alone or with Kansas, or perhaps even another Texas school like T.C.U. before they took both Oklahoma schools. But until you are in the moment and know what your opposition is trying to do, then you can't ever say never.

I promise you anything you hear on message boards or read from beat writers or bloggers that begins with "X will never do Y" is 99.9% of the time B.S.

Business arrangements are as fluid as the marketplace and most executives will never say never. What they will almost always say is "as things stand now we might consider X or Y, and would rather avoid A or B." They don't say "never" because they always want to give all options some wiggle room.

It's been said numerous times here on this board, as many times as why Tech or osu won't be included in the B16. I disagreed but that's me.. I think osu would be a good fit in either the B16 or sec, but most tend to disagree with me on that

(06-21-2020 01:43 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:10 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  A counter question would be would the SEC be willing to take Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to keep the Sooners out of the Big Ten.

If the answer to that is yes, then the next question is would the SEC West schools be enticed by ESPN to sign long term series with Independent Texas (who ESPN also owns the tv rights for)?

If ESPN can’t guide the Horns into the SEC this would be the next best thing.

Been said that the SEC would not want anything to do with osu.. even if to bring in ou

Said by whom? When the pair was turned down as a Boren counter offer in 2010-1 the SEC had to add two from different markets and A&M was on board and we weren't adding 3 or 4. So it was definitely a no go. If it meant cutting Texas theoretically off from considering the Big 10 we might take both. It clearly would not be one of the SEC's preferences, but landing just Oklahoma or just Texas means no advantage is gained by the Big 10 should they get the other. Those kinds of considerations are game time calls. I'm sure the SEC would rather take OU alone or with Kansas, or perhaps even another Texas school like T.C.U. before they took both Oklahoma schools. But until you are in the moment and know what your opposition is trying to do, then you can't ever say never.

I promise you anything you hear on message boards or read from beat writers or bloggers that begins with "X will never do Y" is 99.9% of the time B.S.

Business arrangements are as fluid as the marketplace and most executives will never say never. What they will almost always say is "as things stand now we might consider X or Y, and would rather avoid A or B." They don't say "never" because they always want to give all options some wiggle room.

It's been said numerous times here on this board, as many times as why Tech or osu won't be included in the B16. I disagreed but that's me.. I think osu would be a good fit in either the B16 or sec, but most tend to disagree with me on that

There are a lot of fanboys with schadenfreude who make such statements around here. It's not how networks and conferences look at this matter.

There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

(06-21-2020 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-20-2020 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  24 million more than they made last year.

And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

Which for me begs the question: If OU and Kansas go to the SEC, I don't expect the NCAA would revoke the Big 12's autonomous status; but would the media and the public still consider them a "power conference" with only Texas as their tentpole?

No. And that's why Texas would have to make a decision at that time and with the SEC comfortably at 16 and Aggie dancing a jig I think Texas at that point would seek an independent deal. IMO that's the only set of circumstances that could open the ACC up as a potentiality for Texas. They would probably still insist upon friends. So Baylor and T.C.U. join in full and they come in as a Partial.

At that point I believe that the ACC should insist upon 6 conference games from both Texas and N.D. Otherwise Texas would insist upon playing T.C.U. and Baylor annually leaving only 3 for old line ACC schools. But by having 2 Texas schools in which they would play they get 6 home games and if they rotate those two Texas schools home and away that gives them at least 8 games in Texas annually (6 home, 1 home/away ACC game, and the RRR which would continue in Dallas) and possibly a 9th if they play Aggie again. That would placate Texas for a long time.

The ACC now has 16 full members and 2 partials. If the Horns insist on Tech as well then Wake could become a partial and Tech could join in full. Then you would have 16 full and 3 partials.

Given that the potential deal you posit with the ACC is no sure thing, doesn't Texas' decision come sooner than that? Once OU is committed to come to the SEC along with somebody, might Texas not prefer to be that somebody instead of Kansas (who I'm almost sure would accept)? Texas could make that move and earn more even if they had to give up the LHN to do it. But would their ego let them do it?

If Texas lets OU and KU leave them, the Horns would have to hope that they could get 12 votes from the ACC. If the deal requires that TCU and Baylor come along I'm not sure you could get that many votes, and if the ACC wants Texas alone, I'm not sure the Horns want that. It's a lot easier all around to sell OU and UT to the SEC than any other combination IMO.

(06-21-2020 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

Which for me begs the question: If OU and Kansas go to the SEC, I don't expect the NCAA would revoke the Big 12's autonomous status; but would the media and the public still consider them a "power conference" with only Texas as their tentpole?

No. And that's why Texas would have to make a decision at that time and with the SEC comfortably at 16 and Aggie dancing a jig I think Texas at that point would seek an independent deal. IMO that's the only set of circumstances that could open the ACC up as a potentiality for Texas. They would probably still insist upon friends. So Baylor and T.C.U. join in full and they come in as a Partial.

At that point I believe that the ACC should insist upon 6 conference games from both Texas and N.D. Otherwise Texas would insist upon playing T.C.U. and Baylor annually leaving only 3 for old line ACC schools. But by having 2 Texas schools in which they would play they get 6 home games and if they rotate those two Texas schools home and away that gives them at least 8 games in Texas annually (6 home, 1 home/away ACC game, and the RRR which would continue in Dallas) and possibly a 9th if they play Aggie again. That would placate Texas for a long time.

The ACC now has 16 full members and 2 partials. If the Horns insist on Tech as well then Wake could become a partial and Tech could join in full. Then you would have 16 full and 3 partials.

Given that the potential deal you posit with the ACC is no sure thing, doesn't Texas' decision come sooner than that? Once OU is committed to come to the SEC along with somebody, might Texas not prefer to be that somebody instead of Kansas (who I'm almost sure would accept)? Texas could make that move and earn more even if they had to give up the LHN to do it. But would their ego let them do it?

If Texas lets OU and KU leave them, the Horns would have to hope that they could get 12 votes from the ACC. If the deal requires that TCU and Baylor come along I'm not sure you could get that many votes, and if the ACC wants Texas alone, I'm not sure the Horns want that. It's a lot easier all around to sell OU and UT to the SEC than any other combination IMO.

The ACC presidents had Notre Dame,then insisted on immediate (instead of a 7 year phase in) all or nothing....they got nothing ....and later had to settle for only a partial. They won't make that mistake again.....they can't afford it. Welcome Baylor and TCU!

(06-21-2020 02:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 12:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 10:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 08:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  And if OU brought another B12 school with them, that's $48 million or $6 million for each of the remaining B12 schools. IMO, the next B12 media deal would result in everyone getting a haircut at least that big to pay for the extra that goes to the SEC to pay for their 2 new members. The haircut would be greater still if the B12 added two G5 schools to stay at ten members.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas account for about 493 million of the 1.19 billion in total revenue generated for the Big 12. So yes, if 2 of those 3 leave it's more than a major haircut, it more like leaving the remaining Big 12 members a mohawk.

Which for me begs the question: If OU and Kansas go to the SEC, I don't expect the NCAA would revoke the Big 12's autonomous status; but would the media and the public still consider them a "power conference" with only Texas as their tentpole?

No. And that's why Texas would have to make a decision at that time and with the SEC comfortably at 16 and Aggie dancing a jig I think Texas at that point would seek an independent deal. IMO that's the only set of circumstances that could open the ACC up as a potentiality for Texas. They would probably still insist upon friends. So Baylor and T.C.U. join in full and they come in as a Partial.

At that point I believe that the ACC should insist upon 6 conference games from both Texas and N.D. Otherwise Texas would insist upon playing T.C.U. and Baylor annually leaving only 3 for old line ACC schools. But by having 2 Texas schools in which they would play they get 6 home games and if they rotate those two Texas schools home and away that gives them at least 8 games in Texas annually (6 home, 1 home/away ACC game, and the RRR which would continue in Dallas) and possibly a 9th if they play Aggie again. That would placate Texas for a long time.

The ACC now has 16 full members and 2 partials. If the Horns insist on Tech as well then Wake could become a partial and Tech could join in full. Then you would have 16 full and 3 partials.

Given that the potential deal you posit with the ACC is no sure thing, doesn't Texas' decision come sooner than that? Once OU is committed to come to the SEC along with somebody, might Texas not prefer to be that somebody instead of Kansas (who I'm almost sure would accept)? Texas could make that move and earn more even if they had to give up the LHN to do it. But would their ego let them do it?

If Texas lets OU and KU leave them, the Horns would have to hope that they could get 12 votes from the ACC. If the deal requires that TCU and Baylor come along I'm not sure you could get that many votes, and if the ACC wants Texas alone, I'm not sure the Horns want that. It's a lot easier all around to sell OU and UT to the SEC than any other combination IMO.

Obviously Texas could bump Kansas for that 16th SEC slot if they wanted it. If they don't I would think the ACC would be convinced to take their deal. If you wouldn't the PAC probably would. But bet that as it may they would know those options ahead of time. They've been in discussion with about every conference out there consistently since 1987.

But the Texas market is strong enough at nearly 28 million that double and triple dipping that T2 material would still be profitable for the ACC.

JRsec,
I actually like your take on UT/ou digging it's heels in the Big 12 and forcing ESPN to add to the conference either through certain ACC schools or even making the honey pot sweeter for SC to give real thought about joining the Big12.

As a UT fan, I'm pretty much cool with everything other than joining the B16.

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

(06-21-2020 03:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

Ahhh it's great to be the Hottest, loaded girl at the party... makes people with great minds do illogical decision makings in order to get her..