(01-05-2018 05:54 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 04:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  As an SEC fan and as a PAC 12 fan, I agree with you JR on the conference pecking order and the SEC not taking Oklahoma State alone. Makes no sense, especially when you consider that OSU really doesn’t bring in any significant markets with a good following. However, I have state my sincere doubts about Texas joining the SEC. For one, the UT Longhorns are academic snobs, much like those annoying academic snobs at the Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow(bellied)jackets. Second, Texas views itself as it the “Notre Dame” of the South, much like GT used to do, back in the day. For those reasons right there, I don’t want Texas in the SEC. Too much like North Avenue Trade School. Third, Texas A&M doesn’t want Texas in the SEC, and I can’t say I blame the Aggies one bit!!!

The flaw in that thinking is that you (and JR) are thinking like fans and not looking at things from the "networks" prospective.
Would the SEC want to take Oklahoma State or any other lesser school? Of course not! But the SEC is in the best position of absorb a school like Oklahoma State (without Oklahoma) because of their core strength. The networks are looking to market college football, not the SEC or the B1G. In order to do that the strengths of the conferences have to be more level than in the past. The SEC does not need any more great football schools to be successful and gain attention, but the PAC does and probably the ACC too! The one problem that redistribution can not solve is the Big 12's lack of populated areas.
Now I don't blame any fan of a conference saying "we won't take them, they aren't up to our standards, or they will dilute our product", but in the grand scheme of things, if the "networks" decide it's in their best interest, and are willing to pay for it, it will happen.

Sadly for you Xlance, that time is passing rapidly. Now that the market model is dying there is little need at all for Oklahoma State. The bargaining power is in actual eyeballs. The brand schools know this and the conferences do as well. And X, I've seldom thought like a fan. What I do think like is a businessman. And the dollars just aren't there for O.S.U. no matter what ESPN would pay, and since they are business men as well, I doubt they would look at it the way you are suggesting. Five years ago, quite possibly. Today, no. I seriously doubt that OSU is worth 45 million a year to the SEC or ESPN.

Now as to Dawg in Bama's remarks, I totally agree with you about Texas's publicly stated egotistical spew which is designed to make their alums feel special. And it is true that Tech under Bobby Dodd felt similarly. But that said in 2010-11 Tech wanted to know the SEC's interest in them. Then the Tech leaning lawmakers in Georgia wanted UGA to sponsor them for SEC membership.

And since '91 Texas has been in discussions with the SEC on at least 3 occasions and are rumored to be talking again. Why? Money. But Texas is always top 5 in revenue why would they be concerned about money? They are concerned about the money they generate on sports, on ticket sales, on alumni donations, and from their fans in general. And while they aren't enamored of the SEC we remain their best fit for their sports culture, not their campus culture.

Texas doesn't have a viable option with the PAC. The PAC drags their revenue down because the games would be far less accessible even with taking a block of the Big 12 with them and because the PAC makes so much less than Texas and OU that they both would actually have to give up revenue to make the move, and then spend more in travel for fewer games their fans could travel too, which means a decline in fan interest, which means a decline in donations, and a rise in the cost of doing business.

So Texas has only 3 real alternatives:

1. Stay and try to hold a Texas centered conference together. That's not generating a lot of fan interest the more they lose key brands to play to other conferences the more the Big 12 has had to grow with games the Horn fans yawn about. As a result that 100,000 plus seat stadium is seldom as full as it once was and their fans have been on record with their disapproval.

2. They could join the Big 10. But while they would make more money the accessibility of the games would almost be as tough as it would be in the PAC and what's worse is that they would be limited on who they could travel with. Then there is another issue for Texas in the B1G, their sports don't line up. Baseball and Softball would suffer. Baseball and Softball would flourish in the PAC but it would cost them an arm & leg for travel.

3. They could join the SEC. The games are more accessible, especially for the Western division, it reunites them with two of their top 3 all time rivals, and should Oklahoma come with them (as was discussed in '91) it covers all of those bases. Throw in OSU and Tech and it really checks the boxes for both schools. The money is better and the sports culture fit would be the best they could find. And, it would please ESPN who could monetize the content better in the SEC than in the PAC or Big 10 (and that's the facts X).

Yes Texas would have to backtrack a couple of decades of snobbish remarks, but they have Florida and Vanderbilt to sit in the corner with and snicker if that's what they feel they need to do.

As far as A&M fans go sure they hate Texas and are happy as clams not to have them around. But Texas is their money game and A&M is one of two money games for Texas. And under the refereeing of the SEC the two could coexist while maintaining their white hot hatred for one another. We're big enough, and already have enough hate to go around. The bottom line is that the Texas/A&M game would be almost as big of a money maker as Auburn/Alabama which is massive in national numbers every year.

So I hear what you are saying, I understand the truth in it, but I also know that both schools' administrations and A.D.'s understand the value of renewing that series. Texas called it off in a tantrum. They thought it would sabotage the Aggies move. A&M called their bluff. So now Texas lives with the fact that they have cut off their own nose to spite their face. Now the Aggie fans want them to live with that. But both campuses organized their traditions around hating each other and nothing sells their tickets like that game. A&M does a great job of filling out Kyle Field on a Saturday, but having UT back on the schedule would be a boost in interest and donations by ticket purchasing fans who more than the donors want the game back.

So Auburn and Alabama could move to the East and Texas and A&M with Oklahoma could anchor the new west with a strong set of rivalries to match those in the East.

Arkansas/Texas, Arkansas/A&M, Texas/Oklahoma, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Oklahoma/A&M, Texas/A&M, A&M/Tech, Texas/Tech, A&M/LSU and LSU vs all of them become must see TV. And with it the Mississippi schools and Missouri suddenly have a bit more relevance as well.

So ESPN essentially has two divisions (or 4) that are now each equal in value to what the SEC was worth when we were 12 schools, as far as content value goes.

So if Texas can park its attitude, everything they want (close familiar rivals), sports culture fit, ease of access for their fans, and money can be had best in the SEC. And then there are the demographic trends. The Southeast is growing and football is waning everywhere else. If the Horns want to make a move for the future of their sports, the SEC is it. What galls them the most is that they know it.

So, as much as most of us detest Texas, if we both could profit by the moves, the business of sports may make strange allies again.