(04-04-2018 08:53 AM)RocketCitySooner Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-02-2018 07:05 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If there are only eight votes needed to dissolve the Big 12, the four-letter network really only needs to place eight schools. Kansas State and Baylor draw the short straws. Iowa State, Kansas, TCU, and West Virginia head to the SEC. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

It would just resolve so many ancillary distractions to go ahead and take care of all of them. Otherwise in 2025 it won't take any votes. But then ESPN would not be able to scoop what they wanted before everyone else got involved in the bidding. So the price of Baylor and KState is small potatoes compared to the bigger picture targets.

Some qustions:
Can eight schools truly dissolve the GOR/XII conference? Did not the schools sell their rights to the conference? Are these rights property? Did the Conference sell those rights to the nets? If the schools dissolve the conference would not the nets still retain the tv rights?
Another question:
Is it true that Boren tried to market OU/OSU as a pair to the SEC back in 2011?
One wonders if those tales of OU being adverse to the SEC are true?

On 8 schools, what they can dissolve by vote is the conference. Big 12 bylaws require a vote of 75% of its membership to dissolve. The question over the rights having been purchased by the network is another matter. But if there is no longer a conference then if one or the other media partners (currently FOX & ESPN) choose to buyout the other it can be done. It would be especially easy if ESPN for instance bought out FOX's 50% and then sublet them those rights for the same cost until the end of the contract.

Why might FOX go for this? Because it would give them access to SEC and ACC away games to the Big 12 members whose rights they've sublet so for the duration of the current rights (2025) that gives them a draw into more lucrative markets with higher profile games. And then if they wanted to try to buy rights outright they could compete for them around 2030 for the SEC and 2036 for the ACC.

As to Boren in 2011 yes he tried to market both schools to the SEC. We couldn't even consider it at the time because ESPN was interested in only seeing us add two and A&M was already on board with coming over. At the time we were adding two to fulfill the contract terms for renegotiating an existing contract. Those terms stated we had to add two "new" markets. That is the only reason that Florida State and Clemson could not be considered. It is also why OSU as a second could not be considered.

And to Imafatkid, there was no "Gentlemen's agreement to blackball schools from existing states by those states other member schools. In fact Florida sponsored Florida State in '91-2 for membership because they feared that with conferences expanding that their money game (the FSU game) might one day be jeopardized by the size of conferences. Therefore the best way to protect the very game that they based their donations upon would be in doubt. This was so much of an issue that the only gentlemen's agreement that Mike Slive asked for was that we have an understanding not to nominate our in state rivals until we met the two new markets clause in the contract with ESPN. CBS didn't care one way or the other because they were only buying 14 games from us at the time and adding schools didn't really increase their inventory.

Clay Travis, a putz who hasn't been right about anything, was the one who pushed the canard about the blackball and then it became an internet myth because of the damned chat rooms.

The myth was allowed to persist because ESPN didn't want conferences essentially monopolizing whole large states because the Mouse wanted to double dip from two conferences into Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina and Virginia. That's why in 2011 there was also the push for N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. At the time there was a bigger deal in play to attract key brands from the Big 12 to the ACC so that the branding of the ACC could be built up. There were also plans even back then for the ACCN to launch one year after the SECN and for the two footprints to be shared in marketing.

You have to remember that under the market footprint subscription fee pay model the size of potential markets were more important than any single school's brand status. So the SEC was to expand with A&M, another from the Big 12 and Missouri was allegedly suggested and pushed by the network, and N.C. State and Virginia Tech were to be the other two. The conference was a bit concerned about the reaction of its fan base to N.C. State and Virginia Tech when most fans, self included, were more interested in adding Florida State and Clemson. So Travis was used to leak the possibility of N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC, Mr. SEC sold the public on the value of the additions, and everyone got ready. in late 2010 we met with Va Tech folks and afterward the ACC called off this concept. So briefly after that ESPN had a crawler announcing Florida State and Clemson to the SEC. Supposedly we were pissed enough after all of the work invested in this process that ESPN relented on letting those two go. It was also supposedly the catalyst that led to the Maryland departure. The Terps had been in informal talks with the Big 10 and when the money maker deal the ACC had promised fell through they bolted. N.D. who had been privy to all of this then said they would join the ACC as a partial, but they wanted the football first schools in place or there would be no deal. So ESPN supposedly declined the release of those two schools a few days later and promised full coverage for the SECN at its opening as a peace offering. GOR's were slapped into place in the Big 12 and then the ACC and here we are.

Loftin has written about the no two schools from the same state sentiment, but that was the ESPN preference in those days, as indicated by the renegotiation clause, and that's what they paid to enforce. It's also what the Aggie fan base who bought his book wanted to hear.

Today with streaming becoming reality for delivery systems, content will rule the day. So branding now is more important than it has ever been before. Markets are not without value, but a brand that dominates a larger market would be the preference. So schools like Oklahoma and Texas are powerhouse additions potentially, and Florida State would again add to the bottom line.

The economic impact of Oklahoma is just over 1 billion dollars to its region. To put that into perspective that is just under half of the total economic impact of the ACC. Texas and Oklahoma together are only behind the total economic impact of the ACC by $250,000,000.

This is why Oklahoma with Oklahoma State is probably valuable enough to move as a pair. They both have good draw out of Dallas / Ft. Worth and both have the interest of people in the Texas/Oklahoma viewing region of 34 million people. Texas would do essentially the same thing, but we do already have A&M already delivering a strong % of the region. Would we take Texas? Yes. They carry too much value by themselves to turn them down. Would we take Texas with Tech? I think we might, especially if Kansas and Oklahoma headed to the Big 10 because then Texas and Tech would provide a strong enough grasp on the region to negate the economic impact of the Oklahoma/Kansas move and to keep the SEC in command of branding and at the top of the pay scale in total revenue. Plus they are an academic plumb even if they are a social pariah.