(05-06-2020 01:47 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

Well I stand by my statement that A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. I do not understand what Auburn having Aerospace Engineers employed at the Space Center has to do with football recruiting.

I agree, LSU has had a presence in Houston for along time. Actually, LSU's presence in Houston was largely due to their rivalry with Rice when Rice was a power house back in the 40's and 50's.

Since A&M entered the SEC, the Houston media has increased their coverage of the SEC considerably and that has got to influence Houston area recruits. I am not going to go back and research recruiting classes of LSU, Bama, etc. since A&M entered the SEC,
but I think any reasonable person would agree it would have an effect.

Lastly, referring to me as the Big12 fan boy is beneath you JR.

(05-06-2020 01:47 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

Well I stand by my statement that A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. I do not understand what Auburn having Aerospace Engineers employed at the Space Center has to do with football recruiting.

I agree, LSU has had a presence in Houston for along time. Actually, LSU's presence in Houston was largely due to their rivalry with Rice when Rice was a power house back in the 40's and 50's.

Since A&M entered the SEC, the Houston media has increased their coverage of the SEC considerably and that has got to influence Houston area recruits. I am not going to go back and research recruiting classes of LSU, Bama, etc. since A&M entered the SEC,
but I think any reasonable person would agree it would have an effect.

Lastly, referring to me as the Big12 fan boy is beneath you JR.

(05-06-2020 02:37 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 01:47 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

Well I stand by my statement that A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. I do not understand what Auburn having Aerospace Engineers employed at the Space Center has to do with football recruiting.

I agree, LSU has had a presence in Houston for along time. Actually, LSU's presence in Houston was largely due to their rivalry with Rice when Rice was a power house back in the 40's and 50's.

Since A&M entered the SEC, the Houston media has increased their coverage of the SEC considerably and that has got to influence Houston area recruits. I am not going to go back and research recruiting classes of LSU, Bama, etc. since A&M entered the SEC,
but I think any reasonable person would agree it would have an effect.

Lastly, referring to me as the Big12 fan boy is beneath you JR.

It's next to impossible to produce an accurate fan map, but the New York Times published one a few years back, based on zip codes and Facebook likes. This was as close to an accurate map as I have seen. Living on the edge of Houston, I was surprised to see the Houston metro in a light shade of orange.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#10,29.826,-95.170

I live in a suburb, so it's slightly different, but I notice a tilt toward A&M. I wouldn't call it dominant, but slightly tilted toward A&M. I see more A&M stuff than UT where I live. I'd put it in the order of A&M > UT > LSU, with U of H right with or just behind LSU. That generally tracks with what I've seen in the city of Houston. UT is not lacking for support in Houston, though. LSU picks up support due to proximity to Louisiana and from folks that came here after Katrina and stayed.

UT does need a presence in Houston. Houston definitely feels like it has swung to the SEC since A&M joined it. It's not Atlanta or Nashville, but it's not a Big 12 town like DFW is, either. Houston is shared by the SEC and the Big 12, and it is not owned by either.

(05-06-2020 11:31 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 09:40 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  I do know that Texas does well playing Rice in Houston. Tons of alumni and fans live in the Houston area. I also think they enjoy sticking it to UH by not scheduling them.

If you look at it's future OOC schedules they play LSU,Ark,Bama,Tosu,Mich,GA, FL.. but also have games against Texas St.. but I think they did it like this because they feel it's an disadvantage to play more than 10 P5 teams compared to schools who play one less in the SEC and ACC.

But I guess that constitutes a business model of sorts

UT played a 2 for 1 with U of H in 2000-01-02. The 2001 game was controversial, in that it was played at the old Robertson Stadium on the U of H campus. This was the year before NRG Stadium was opened, and the Astros and Oilers had already vacated the Astrodome. UT asked for 10,000 tickets in U of H's 32,000 seat stadium. U of H attempted to install temporary bleachers, but they were deemed unsafe. This resulted in 4,150 seats that were sold but were unable to be used.

UH says bleachers no-go

Texas has not played Houston in football since.

U of H has since demolished Robertson Stadium and has replaced it with TDECU Stadium.

There is a lot more institutional rivalry between UT and U of H, but that was the last meeting on the field between the two.

UT has a much better relationship with Rice. They play 2 for 1 as well, but Rice uses NRG Stadium for their home game against UT instead of Rice Stadium. The last UT-Rice game at NRG Stadium was last September, and drew 42,417. That crowd would have fit comfortably within Rice Stadium, but NRG is a superior facility.

(05-05-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Texas definitely has maintained a Texas centric scheduling model and I think it has been intentional in order to boost their presence with alumni across the state.

Had they moved to the Big 8 with just TAMU I think it’s safe to assume they would have maintained a rotation of OOC games among the other former SWC teams to keep that Texas heavy schedule.

If orchestrated properly, Texas could probably go to the SEC and maybe average one fewer game in Texas a year.

As for Florida, I wish their model was still FSU, Miami, plus two home games against G5’s. I wish CFB in general played better OOC schedules and cut down on the rent-a-victim match ups.

(05-05-2020 10:49 AM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 07:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2020 06:56 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(02-18-2020 06:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-17-2020 11:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Obviously, Lance is joking, but seriously, West Virginia is at least a remote possibility for the ACC.

No Joke!
Texas to the ACC is probably ESPN's #1 option.
It keeps Texas in the fold and allows Texas to keep the LHN, which in turn allows ESPN to pay the 'Horns supplemental income outside of the ACC contract. Partial membership (a la Notre Dame) allows Texas to continue their successful business model which is probably Texas' #1 goal.

Texas business model? I have lived in Texas many years and have known many UT alums, fans and former football players and I have never heard or seen any of them, or any of the Texas media ever mention the Texas business model.

The only place I have ever seen it, is own this board by posters trying to justify their argument for Texas joining the SEC or by other posters that have read it on this board and just repeated it.

Texas will never, put all of their other sports teams on an island where they have to travel to the East Coast for every away conference game. They will not accept a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC. Texas does not settle for anything. They don't have to.

You don't talk about business models. You run them. Texas has one as does Florida and they were both predicated on the same concept, play as many games in state (home and away) as is possible and profitable).

For years Florida's buy games were all in state and two of what we now call power games were between Miami and Florida State. So with 4 SEC home games, 4 games not affiliated with the conference with 2 of them being against small schools (one at the season opener and the other before the Georgia game) and a rotation of Miami and FSU home and away the gators managed to play 8 of their 12 regular season games within the state of Florida.

Texas does the same thing. They get great travel crowds and reach alumni at a farther distance from Austin but within the state by playing Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Baylor. When they had A&M annually and Oklahoma in DFW then with their 2 buy games they too maintained at least 8 games annually on Texas soil. This also keeps revenue and taxes in state. It's just smart business.

This business model spurs donations for away tickets in state, guarantees a solid Longhorn travel crowd and has been the center piece of their athletic department's strategy that keeps them at or near the top in revenue earnings annually.

It is why Texas does what Texas wishes and it is real whether you've heard of it or not. It's not what beat writers talk about because that doesn't sell papers or get blog hits. But it is what all highly successful college athletic departments develop. Notre Dame for instance doesn't build its model on playing 8 games in Indiana, but to the contrary wants exposure nationally. They like to play a game in the Northeast, California, the Deep South, and float one around so they reach alumni everywhere, but also get their name before the entire nation each year.

So while I agree with your sentiment that Texas will do what Texas wishes to do, there is most definitely a pattern (or model) for how they conduct their business and they preserve it, and in part they preserve it by not making it a topic of conversation. When Florida's model was made a topic of national discussion and they had to defend what they had done for years they eventually caved in traveling mostly due to PR. The fact you haven't heard of it is part of its success.

JR, I thought you would respond to my post. I have great respect for your knowledge about the SEC and the TV networks. However, I strongly disagree with what you call the Texas business model, or Texas wanting to play as many games as possible in the State.

Texas wanted to abandon the SWC, because they did not like playing the private schools. Darrell Royal talked about it. They played too many games in Texas. If they won the SWC championship, they were relegated to the old Cotton Bowl in Dallas and it often did not sell out. I remember Jim Brock, the Cotton Bowl hoss, saying if the Cotton Bowl did not get Nebraska or Notre Dame they were in trouble attendance wise. Surprisingly, only A&M playing as the host team guaranteed a sell out.

OU stole a lot of Texas best recruits, because they said come to OU and play Nebraska and Colorado etc, and go to the Orange Bowl in Miami. Go to Texas and never leave the State, except for Arkansas.

So Texas was ready to join the Big 8 with only A&M. Then Texas politics intervened and forced Baylor and Texas Tech to go with them. So TCU, SMU, Rice and Houston were no longer on their schedule and Texas got its wish, other than Baylor and Tech being forced to go with them. So where was the "Texas business model".

Before Texas joined the Big8, I personally attended Texas games at TCU, Baylor and SMU and the games were not sold out, often far from it.

You talk a lot about Florida and Notre Dame. That has nothing to do with Texas.

As I said, i respect your knowledge and enjoy reading your posts, but I think you are wrong about the Texas business model of playing as many games as possible in the State.

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

(05-07-2020 09:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

A&M has never been "dominant" in Houston. But they are a lot stronger in Houston compared to DFW. SEC recruiting in Texas really hasn't changed over the last 10-15 years except that Nick Saban is regularly able to get a top 10 recruit or two. LSU has always recruited Texas well.

(05-06-2020 02:37 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 01:47 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

Well I stand by my statement that A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. I do not understand what Auburn having Aerospace Engineers employed at the Space Center has to do with football recruiting.

I agree, LSU has had a presence in Houston for along time. Actually, LSU's presence in Houston was largely due to their rivalry with Rice when Rice was a power house back in the 40's and 50's.

Since A&M entered the SEC, the Houston media has increased their coverage of the SEC considerably and that has got to influence Houston area recruits. I am not going to go back and research recruiting classes of LSU, Bama, etc. since A&M entered the SEC,
but I think any reasonable person would agree it would have an effect.

Lastly, referring to me as the Big12 fan boy is beneath you JR.

It's next to impossible to produce an accurate fan map, but the New York Times published one a few years back, based on zip codes and Facebook likes. This was as close to an accurate map as I have seen. Living on the edge of Houston, I was surprised to see the Houston metro in a light shade of orange.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#10,29.826,-95.170

I live in a suburb, so it's slightly different, but I notice a tilt toward A&M. I wouldn't call it dominant, but slightly tilted toward A&M. I see more A&M stuff than UT where I live. I'd put it in the order of A&M > UT > LSU, with U of H right with or just behind LSU. That generally tracks with what I've seen in the city of Houston. UT is not lacking for support in Houston, though. LSU picks up support due to proximity to Louisiana and from folks that came here after Katrina and stayed.

UT does need a presence in Houston. Houston definitely feels like it has swung to the SEC since A&M joined it. It's not Atlanta or Nashville, but it's not a Big 12 town like DFW is, either. Houston is shared by the SEC and the Big 12, and it is not owned by either.

(05-07-2020 09:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 02:37 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 01:47 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2020 10:00 AM)texoma Wrote:  Texas A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. When they moved to the SEC, then LSU, Bama, Auburn and other SEC teams increased their recruiting in the Houston area. I believe Texas felt it was necessary to maintain a presence in Houston to help counter the recruiting by the SEC schools.

That's pure B.S. Auburn's largest extant alumni base was in Houston and has diminished as NASA's prominence in Houston has waned since the Apollo series and the Shuttle days. L.S.U. has always had a strong presence in Houston due to proximity. Bama's success has them recruiting a lot of areas more prominently than in the past.

The Big 12 fan boy justifications for what has always been is absurd. Every solid program in the nation recruits Florida and Georgia and have since the late 70's when recruiting started being a more national in scope. It got started that way in the Jim Crow South when those living outside of it could recruit Southern African American athletes with a high degree of success while the South denied them entrance to its schools. Prior to that virtually all of recruitment was local.

This is a fact lost upon many as to how Nebraska rose to prominence with a sparse state.

Auburn has had a significant presence in Houston since NASA located there. We've cranked out a goodly number of aerospace engineers over the years and that is why Auburn partnered with Purdue on many projects in those days.

And for those who haven't lived long enough L.S.U. and A&M were very old rivals dating back before the formation of the SEC and Houston was their main point of intersection.

Well I stand by my statement that A&M has always been the dominate team in Houston. I do not understand what Auburn having Aerospace Engineers employed at the Space Center has to do with football recruiting.

I agree, LSU has had a presence in Houston for along time. Actually, LSU's presence in Houston was largely due to their rivalry with Rice when Rice was a power house back in the 40's and 50's.

Since A&M entered the SEC, the Houston media has increased their coverage of the SEC considerably and that has got to influence Houston area recruits. I am not going to go back and research recruiting classes of LSU, Bama, etc. since A&M entered the SEC,
but I think any reasonable person would agree it would have an effect.

Lastly, referring to me as the Big12 fan boy is beneath you JR.

It's next to impossible to produce an accurate fan map, but the New York Times published one a few years back, based on zip codes and Facebook likes. This was as close to an accurate map as I have seen. Living on the edge of Houston, I was surprised to see the Houston metro in a light shade of orange.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#10,29.826,-95.170

I live in a suburb, so it's slightly different, but I notice a tilt toward A&M. I wouldn't call it dominant, but slightly tilted toward A&M. I see more A&M stuff than UT where I live. I'd put it in the order of A&M > UT > LSU, with U of H right with or just behind LSU. That generally tracks with what I've seen in the city of Houston. UT is not lacking for support in Houston, though. LSU picks up support due to proximity to Louisiana and from folks that came here after Katrina and stayed.

UT does need a presence in Houston. Houston definitely feels like it has swung to the SEC since A&M joined it. It's not Atlanta or Nashville, but it's not a Big 12 town like DFW is, either. Houston is shared by the SEC and the Big 12, and it is not owned by either.

Maybe you live in the NW suburbs where you could virtually commute to College Station. Inside the Loop, you see more Longhorns. Its probably shifting some since A&M has expanded its size so much in the last 10 years.

A lot of people don't understand that A&M was once a small male engineering/ag school. In the late 60s when UT grew to 40,000 students, A&M still only had about 10,000. In the early 80s when UT grew to 50,000, A&M was about 20-25k. Houston was a bigger school. Texas has kept its size the same, but A&M kept growing to about 45k in the mid 90s. They stayed there until Gov. Perry put pressure on them (and UT but UT resisted) to expand further. Now they are 60-65k.

(05-07-2020 09:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-05-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Texas definitely has maintained a Texas centric scheduling model and I think it has been intentional in order to boost their presence with alumni across the state.

Had they moved to the Big 8 with just TAMU I think it’s safe to assume they would have maintained a rotation of OOC games among the other former SWC teams to keep that Texas heavy schedule.

If orchestrated properly, Texas could probably go to the SEC and maybe average one fewer game in Texas a year.

As for Florida, I wish their model was still FSU, Miami, plus two home games against G5’s. I wish CFB in general played better OOC schedules and cut down on the rent-a-victim match ups.

A lot of you don't understand the Texas geography. Put Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana together and you have almost as much land and almost as many people as the state of Texas. So pretty much the whole SEC has the same type of scheduling philosophy.

(06-18-2020 11:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now that we know that Disney is about to acquire full content rights to the SEC I think Disney is going to find itself in a conundrum with how they want to promote the properties that they have. While the SEC is a massive gain for them it also means that they have an excess of programs in the Southeast between what they have from different conferences. They would like to promote their brands deeper outside the Southeast. However, the eastern two thirds of the country are most in tune with college sports.

Now look at Fox Corporation. They have a strong foothold in the Big Ten and a big piece of the Big 12 through Oklahoma. What would they want? More content in the Southeast. Why? To help buttress the content they have through the Big 12 and Big Ten for FS1 and the Fox network. Outside the programs of UT and OU it is very difficult to promote the Big 12 outside of the immediate area. The Big Ten is more solid but would use more exposure in the eastern seaboard.

What would both companies think would be excess content? The PAC, due to time zone differences, fan engagement relative to programs back east and the difficulty to find optimal slots for games when pinned against other established conferences.

Objective: finding the right mix of programs so that there is less of a chance for games people don't care much about being placed in prime hours.

Complicating this is the reality of working around the Major League Baseball playoff calendar but that gives Fox an opportunity of sending a few Big Ten games that would be placed on Fridays back to Disney in exchange for other considerations.

What I'm seeing as a possibility is both Fox and Disney engaging in a horse trade involving programs from the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC, in which each use what they have in excess to get other content they want. Some sort of consolidation would be involved as well. Fox would likely keep BTN but it would probably be renamed since games wouldn't be exclusive to one conference. In that case, the Big Ten members would probably be repaid the investment monies they have put in.

The PAC is likely to go to either a major streaming company or to Comcast. Comcast has a major presence through their regional networks in the Pacific states. And they have the money to buy out the PAC Networks if they choose to do so.

(06-18-2020 11:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now that we know that Disney is about to acquire full content rights to the SEC I think Disney is going to find itself in a conundrum with how they want to promote the properties that they have. While the SEC is a massive gain for them it also means that they have an excess of programs in the Southeast between what they have from different conferences. They would like to promote their brands deeper outside the Southeast. However, the eastern two thirds of the country are most in tune with college sports.

(06-19-2020 02:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 11:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now that we know that Disney is about to acquire full content rights to the SEC I think Disney is going to find itself in a conundrum with how they want to promote the properties that they have. While the SEC is a massive gain for them it also means that they have an excess of programs in the Southeast between what they have from different conferences. They would like to promote their brands deeper outside the Southeast. However, the eastern two thirds of the country are most in tune with college sports.

I'm gonna go all "JR" on you and say that, NO, what ESPN really wants is a monopoly over the Southeast.
(I'm sure JR would say something like that)

(06-18-2020 11:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now that we know that Disney is about to acquire full content rights to the SEC I think Disney is going to find itself in a conundrum with how they want to promote the properties that they have. While the SEC is a massive gain for them it also means that they have an excess of programs in the Southeast between what they have from different conferences. They would like to promote their brands deeper outside the Southeast. However, the eastern two thirds of the country are most in tune with college sports.

Now look at Fox Corporation. They have a strong foothold in the Big Ten and a big piece of the Big 12 through Oklahoma. What would they want? More content in the Southeast. Why? To help buttress the content they have through the Big 12 and Big Ten for FS1 and the Fox network. Outside the programs of UT and OU it is very difficult to promote the Big 12 outside of the immediate area. The Big Ten is more solid but would use more exposure in the eastern seaboard.

What would both companies think would be excess content? The PAC, due to time zone differences, fan engagement relative to programs back east and the difficulty to find optimal slots for games when pinned against other established conferences.

Objective: finding the right mix of programs so that there is less of a chance for games people don't care much about being placed in prime hours.

Complicating this is the reality of working around the Major League Baseball playoff calendar but that gives Fox an opportunity of sending a few Big Ten games that would be placed on Fridays back to Disney in exchange for other considerations.

What I'm seeing as a possibility is both Fox and Disney engaging in a horse trade involving programs from the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC, in which each use what they have in excess to get other content they want. Some sort of consolidation would be involved as well. Fox would likely keep BTN but it would probably be renamed since games wouldn't be exclusive to one conference. In that case, the Big Ten members would probably be repaid the investment monies they have put in.

The PAC is likely to go to either a major streaming company or to Comcast. Comcast has a major presence through their regional networks in the Pacific states. And they have the money to buy out the PAC Networks if they choose to do so.

(06-19-2020 02:38 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-19-2020 02:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 11:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now that we know that Disney is about to acquire full content rights to the SEC I think Disney is going to find itself in a conundrum with how they want to promote the properties that they have. While the SEC is a massive gain for them it also means that they have an excess of programs in the Southeast between what they have from different conferences. They would like to promote their brands deeper outside the Southeast. However, the eastern two thirds of the country are most in tune with college sports.

I'm gonna go all "JR" on you and say that, NO, what ESPN really wants is a monopoly over the Southeast.
(I'm sure JR would say something like that)

ESPN would want a monopoly over college football (at least P5) if they could afford it. They can't.

(06-19-2020 02:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-18-2020 11:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now that we know that Disney is about to acquire full content rights to the SEC I think Disney is going to find itself in a conundrum with how they want to promote the properties that they have. While the SEC is a massive gain for them it also means that they have an excess of programs in the Southeast between what they have from different conferences. They would like to promote their brands deeper outside the Southeast. However, the eastern two thirds of the country are most in tune with college sports.

I'm gonna go all "JR" on you and say that, NO, what ESPN really wants is a monopoly over the Southeast.
(I'm sure JR would say something like that)