(06-02-2019 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:48 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Delaney and the B1G by no means "botched" expansion during the 2010-2013 cycle, but I do think they underestimated/miscalculated what the SEC was going to do with regards to their expansion plans.

The B1G kicked off the realignment cycle in 2009 when Delaney announced expansion plans (Nebraska was added in June, 2010). I believe that Delaney thought that the SEC was pursuing/was going to pursue A&M (which was public knowledge at that point, considered the Texahoma-PAC expansion plans), as well as Southern ACC programs that would have added new territories for the SEC (Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State) as well as West Virginia (Big 12). I also believe Delaney believed that Missouri was going to be available/willing for #13 (and beyond). This, IMO, is the only mistake/miscalculation that Delaney made during the cycle (I think the B1G missing out on Missouri was a big mistake). Missouri was announced to the SEC in November, 2011; Rutgers and Maryland were both announced to the B1G in November, 2012 (which were hardly bad fallback options).

If Delaney had grabbed Missouri earlier (and then moved to grab Maryland as #14, instead of Rutgers), I think the SEC would have still acquired Texas A&M and then got Virginia Tech from the ACC. The ACC would have still acquired Syracuse and Pittsburgh, but - here - instead of the ACC getting Louisville to replace Maryland, they acquire West Virginia/Rutgers to replace Virginia Tech. The Big 12 could have looked to West Virginia/Cincinnati/Louisville/TCU to get back to ten, or even twelve, members.

MIssouri is not a fast growing state. CBS was explaining why a top 10 Missouri team didn't get the SEC game of the week-because they were one of the lowest draws in the SEC. That's why CBS didn't pay a dime extra for Missouri and A&M. A&M was no better than average for the SEC and Missouri was below average. CBS still got the same number of games.

Missouri was not a loss. It did nothing for the Big 10.

And you are wrong in your assessment other than the bolded and underlined portion of your post. CBS didn't pay another dime because there was no addition to their inventory. It wouldn't have mattered if the additions had been Texas and Oklahoma. CBS had 17 games paid for and 17 games was all they were still going to get. That's the beginning, end, and middle of the issue.

The rest is is just hard feelings over two Big 12 schools leaving Texas and buds on their own.

I guarantee they would have paid more if it was Texas and Oklahoma. And all you SEC people were bragging about how much more you would get on all the contracts. CBS said no. Those two schools drug down the average ratings in a conference that already had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

CBS would not have paid more if the SEC had added Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Notre Dame.

Why not? Because they didn't have to! The contract did not require that they pay more if the SEC added teams. ANY teams.

In fact, CBS did cut the SEC a little break by lifting their exclusive broadcast window to pave the way for the SECN. But they didn't have to offer any more money for the new teams, so they didn't.