(04-06-2018 07:03 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2018 10:34 AM)imjustafatkid Wrote:  The only rumors I've heard about Oklahoma are that OU and OSU have to come together, and I don't think the SEC wants (or needs) both. Personally, I'd like West Virginia or Virginia Tech, and Duke or North Carolina. I'd even be willing to take both Duke and North Carolina if they have to come together.

Florida State joining would be awesome, but Florida would be totally against that so it isn't going to happen.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in this almost 150-page thread, but I really like the idea of 16 teams with 4 team divisions. I envision the divisions something like this:

West: TAMU, (insert one Big 12 team or Nebraska here), Arky, LSU
Central: Bama, Ole Miss, MS State, Auburn
North: Mizzou, TN, UK, Vandy
East: Florida, Georgia, USC, (insert one of VT, WVU, NC, Duke, Florida State, whatever)

These would obviously change based on which teams move into the conference, but I see the scheduling like this:

Play each team from your division each season (3 games), 1 permanent rival from another division to preserve rivalries, and then 2 games from the divisions that don't include your rival and 1 game from the division that does include your rival each season. That's 10 conference games, and I realize that's high. So it could be adjusted to a 9 game schedule where instead of the 2 and 1 games in other divisions each team could play 4 games against other division teams on a rotating schedule, with the caveat that each team plays every team in the conference at least once every 4 years. I believe that is doable.

FYI (#2)
The probability that Duke and or North Carolina would ever want to join the SEC is pretty close to zero.

Actually, the complete opposite.

Quote:Cunningham had no shortage of input. A steady stream of emails from alumni, fans and boosters began on Nov. 20.

The notes came from everywhere: from people who graduated from UNC in the 1960s, and those who graduated in the past few years. Former athletes wrote in. There were Rams Club members. And emails from fans who had no tie to the school other than their allegiance.

One came from an Army major who wrote of how he’d followed UNC athletics throughout deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq. He expressed concern about a conference move and wrote, “I will always love Carolina, but my fervor towards our athletic programs would die a rapid death should we choose to enter the BIG TEN.”

The emails – many coming after UNC fans on the message boards at InsideCarolina.com organized a push to fill Cunningham’s inbox – shared roughly the same sentiment: Lead the Tar Heels out of the crumbling ACC, to a better place. The overwhelming majority of fans preferred moving to the SEC. Among the more than 150 pages of emails that Cunningham received in the 10 days after Maryland’s announcement, only one email favored joining the Big Ten.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/frankthetan...mails/amp/

Delusional message board posters.
Bubba Cunningham was a rookie AD and had no authority to influence a move(still doesn't).
If that information had been written about John Montgomery with e-mails coming from an inner circle group in the Rams Club (known as the Big Hitters), it might have some credence, but otherwise is just a bunch of

UNC fans would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten (not even close), but prefer the ACC more.

(04-06-2018 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  UNC fans would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten (not even close), but prefer the ACC more.

Some fans, not most, and certainly not the faculty and administration.

(04-06-2018 07:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 07:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  UNC fans would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten (not even close), but prefer the ACC more.

Some fans, not most, and certainly not the faculty and administration.

Interesting... so you are saying you think most UNC fans prefer the Big Ten over the SEC?

Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

(04-01-2018 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2018 09:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  What we need to know in order to have a firm grasp on ESPN's intentions for the future, is the length of time the paired contracts with the ACCN and SECN are for.
If the Altice contract is for 5 years, then the Big 12 is in full play for an expanded conference and network, at which time I would fully anticipate the SEC excusing Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12, but continuing to guarantee them a full SEC payout for a period of time.
This would give ESPN three marketing units without allowing too much power to be concentrated in the hands of the schools.
By being able to market three distinct units, ESPN could tailor content and matchups and utilize regional advertisers for all three networks instead of relying national advertisers that may be more content to focus on pro sports.

That's not very likely for the following reasons:

1. If ESPN had been interested in keeping the Big 12 together as a unit they would have encouraged the additions of Brigham Young and Cincinnati. They didn't.

Texas which is alleged to want to keep the Big 12 together didn't push for them either. Which is why Boren at OU insisted that expansion be accomplished if the conference was going to stay together.

ESPN used the ACC to acquire schools in the Northeast that they didn't want to fall into the hands of what was then an independently owned Big 10 network.

ESPN has used the SEC to continue the bridge into the Big 12 that the SEC intended when it took Arkansas. So ESPN was helpful in the acquisitions of A&M and Missouri.

ESPN would never encourage the SEC to give up Missouri and Arkansas because the meddling in that regard would not be forgiven and it would damage the value of the SECN which splits profits with ESPN.

You really do need to drop the trolling in this regard.

The SECN contract is up after the 2029-30 season. The ACC's contract is up after the 2036-7 season. The LHN's contract ends in 2031. Since ESPN holds all three handling the T3 rights of the present Big 12 would be a task fairly easily accomplished.

With competition looming on the horizon for the Big 12's rights in 2024-5 only ESPN is in a position to act earlier. By absorbing the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC it not only sews up the Big 12 rights before they can come on the open market, but it permits ESPN to renegotiate the contracts of the ACC and SEC and extend them. And with the SEC's T1 rights coming to market around the close of the 2023-4 season the window for these potential moves could actually be tied up in one fairly neat package if the pricing is right.

ESPN has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by not acting on the Big 12. They risk losing even more in the by 2035 if they don't build value in the ACC. And they risk their investment in the ACCN if they don't add as many viewers as they can get to it.

While it gives the SEC and ACC more power to grow, it also makes ESPN's two most satisfied customers easier to manage if the Big 12 properties are absorbed. It's much easier to deal with two relatively happy entities than it is to deal with three, especially if the internal strife of the third leaves rights in doubt every time a contract nears expiration.

So if the Big 12 is kept intact it will likely remain as is and since that solves nothing, I'm not so sure that is a position that ESPN, or Oklahoma will take.

You can bet your bottom dollar, JR that every scenario is or has been looked at by all parties involved in an effort to find a plan on which there could be consensus.

(04-06-2018 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

I get your guiding point, JR, and agree about keeping threads relatively on topic. But dang, I am not a B12 purist when it comes to SEC expansion. I suppose living on the far east side of the conference influences that.
My idea would be one add on the west side, one add on the east side. It keeps the divisional divide, basically impacted by one add each. OK, one realizes the inflexibilities with the GoRs and such.
My choices, out-of-the-box thinking, maybe too out there, are oSu and get this--Wake Forest. Does contiguous market penetration still matter? Maybe staying away from UT and OU perpetual drama would not be all bad; particularly if their hearts and ambitions are elsewhere.

A family member is an oSu Vet grad. I like oSu, visited there. Wake? When time comes, maybe Wake would be the easiest to break-away from the NC-4. Winston-Salem is a wonderful location, not specifically in the academic triangle. Wake has good academics and quality professional schools. Unfortunately, Wake Forest would need to double Grove Stadium, just 31,000 seats, and find fannies to take the seats. A profound change, and a bit risk-taking, could possibly do that. Also, undergraduate enrollment is the smallest in P5. Yet, politically, the ACC may realize they have one too many schools in NC, and Wake would be the easiest to relinqish. Heck, they could be a private school companion for Vandy, whom they have often played. Two private schools in the SEC east? Well, some unbalanced oddity has to happen when expanding. It may work better than expected. UNC, NCSU, and Duke just ain't going to break, and Wake's bond with them is heavily security-oriented. Deal-cutting, external to a GoR, can be attempted somewhere.

So, again, pardon the half and half approach, and the odd picks, but being unorthodox happens....once in awhile. No diversion was intended. What fits is quite subjective and mixture can be an option, perhaps naming other schools.

(04-18-2018 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

I get your guiding point, JR, and agree about keeping threads relatively on topic. But dang, I am not a B12 purist when it comes to SEC expansion. I suppose living on the far east side of the conference influences that.
My idea would be one add on the west side, one add on the east side. It keeps the divisional divide, basically impacted by one add each. OK, one realizes the inflexibilities with the GoRs and such.
My choices, out-of-the-box thinking, maybe too out there, are oSu and get this--Wake Forest. Does contiguous market penetration still matter? Maybe staying away from UT and OU perpetual drama would not be all bad; particularly if their hearts and ambitions are elsewhere.

A family member is an oSu Vet grad. I like oSu, visited there. Wake? When time comes, maybe Wake would be the easiest to break-away from the NC-4. Winston-Salem is a wonderful location, not specifically in the academic triangle. Wake has good academics and quality professional schools. Unfortunately, Wake Forest would need to double Grove Stadium, just 31,000 seats, and find fannies to take the seats. A profound change, and a bit risk-taking, could possibly do that. Also, undergraduate enrollment is the smallest in P5. Yet, politically, the ACC may realize they have one too many schools in NC, and Wake would be the easiest to relinqish. Heck, they could be a private school companion for Vandy, whom they have often played. Two private schools in the SEC east? Well, some unbalanced oddity has to happen when expanding. It may work better than expected. UNC, NCSU, and Duke just ain't going to break, and Wake's bond with them is heavily security-oriented. Deal-cutting, external to a GoR, can be attempted somewhere.

So, again, pardon the half and half approach, and the odd picks, but being unorthodox happens....once in awhile. No diversion was intended. What fits is quite subjective and mixture can be an option, perhaps naming other schools.

If put to the question, most of the Oklahoma fan base would choose the SEC because of proximity and ease of travel. Their state's main concern is making sure that both schools find P5 homes. The academics at OU want the Big 10 but then there is an agenda there that is not sports oriented. Minor sports people at OU want the SEC as well. Better baseball and softball are important to them. So I wouldn't believe all of the Big 10 agenda talk at all. In the end a school needs its fan base to make its sports profitable. It's just good business.

There is one mainline ACC school that has actually held talks with us before, although because of different motives than their desire to leave, Virginia Tech. Wake is closer to UVa and UNC and Duke than is N.C. State (who is still pretty darn close to them). Virginia Tech historically has not been as close.

While ESPN doesn't want to let the schools that prop up their value go (F.S.U. and Clemson) Virginia Tech is a respectable program, but hardly a bell cow, and they would give the SEC virtually everything we could want in Virginia and penetration into West Virginia. I think that's the school that would add value. Market penetration is now moot. Most contract values are going to be driven by content and the SEC looks at whether schools add to, or drag down our averages. Wake Forest drags them all down but academics without giving us the any brand power like a Duke would.

Oklahoma State on the other hand offers a great deal, but is less acceptable to the college presidents of the SEC would want to enhance our academic standing overall. Personally I have no problem with OSU.

But the only way I could see Va Tech being in play would be if Texas (at ESPN's behest to have them in a more ESPN controlled conference and wanting to increase the carriage of the ACCN at the launch date) agreed to head to the ACC, but with buddies. That would probably encourage some kind of push to let the SEC have inroads into the ACC so that Texas could be included with enough slots to fill out an 16 school conference. Otherwise there aren't enough slots to give Texas a division of their own.

So you might see a 2010 consideration come back into play. Remember the N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC talk? Well that was because there was a bigger plan to move Texas and pals to the ACC in 2010 (before the GOR's and when Deloss Dodds was saying that Texas was looking East).

So if the SEC had to take the two Oklahoma's but also landed Va Tech and N.C. State, then Texas could move to the ACC with Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech in tow.

But this kind of thinking is now more passe. Why? Because ESPN is looking at bundling the ACCN with the SECN as far as the combined footprints are concerned, and because content (meaning brand on brand games) are going to provide the bigger payouts in a streaming world so market footprint size is much less relevant.

My wife works for a school of Vet Med and personally I see a great deal of fit for Oklahoma State, and Iowa State but sports realignment probably won't go in that direction.

And the SEC has another issue, which is closer to my heart, Auburn belongs in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were all annual games that we have lost due to realignment. We are the farthest point Eastward that any West Team has to go regularly. Gainesville and Knoxville a much closer drives for our fans than Arkansas or Texas A&M. So the benefit in adding two to the East, especially if they are strong brands, is that it makes a move of Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West that much more likely.

That would essentially unite the old core of the SEC in the East, and unite the old rivals of the SWC plus Oklahoma in the West. That's a much more marketable package of divisions. So I wouldn't be surprised if for one reason or another we land Oklahoma State, but I seriously doubt that Wake would even receive consideration. If we are that desperate to get into North Carolina (and we are not) then East Carolina would be a better option by most metrics other than academics and that won't be happening either.

In a streaming world the options change. In 2010 Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have been the two most valuable ACC schools the SEC would have wanted to land. In 2018 and forward Clemson and Florida State become the two most valuable ACC schools to us. Those two against an SEC schedule are money in the bank in a streaming world.

But ESPN will never let them go because the value of the ACC would tank. There are only two schools which could add more value for the SEC, Oklahoma and Texas. Landing just one of them cements us in the top earning position moving forward. Oklahoma would be a much easier fit than Texas, so if taking OSU is the price then the way people need to look at it is that we get the #2 brand from the Big 12 (#7 in the nation) along with the #4 brand value wise in the Big 12 (about #38th nationally) and as a pairing that's really solid.

(04-18-2018 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

I get your guiding point, JR, and agree about keeping threads relatively on topic. But dang, I am not a B12 purist when it comes to SEC expansion. I suppose living on the far east side of the conference influences that.
My idea would be one add on the west side, one add on the east side. It keeps the divisional divide, basically impacted by one add each. OK, one realizes the inflexibilities with the GoRs and such.
My choices, out-of-the-box thinking, maybe too out there, are oSu and get this--Wake Forest. Does contiguous market penetration still matter? Maybe staying away from UT and OU perpetual drama would not be all bad; particularly if their hearts and ambitions are elsewhere.

A family member is an oSu Vet grad. I like oSu, visited there. Wake? When time comes, maybe Wake would be the easiest to break-away from the NC-4. Winston-Salem is a wonderful location, not specifically in the academic triangle. Wake has good academics and quality professional schools. Unfortunately, Wake Forest would need to double Grove Stadium, just 31,000 seats, and find fannies to take the seats. A profound change, and a bit risk-taking, could possibly do that. Also, undergraduate enrollment is the smallest in P5. Yet, politically, the ACC may realize they have one too many schools in NC, and Wake would be the easiest to relinqish. Heck, they could be a private school companion for Vandy, whom they have often played. Two private schools in the SEC east? Well, some unbalanced oddity has to happen when expanding. It may work better than expected. UNC, NCSU, and Duke just ain't going to break, and Wake's bond with them is heavily security-oriented. Deal-cutting, external to a GoR, can be attempted somewhere.

So, again, pardon the half and half approach, and the odd picks, but being unorthodox happens....once in awhile. No diversion was intended. What fits is quite subjective and mixture can be an option, perhaps naming other schools.

If put to the question, most of the Oklahoma fan base would choose the SEC because of proximity and ease of travel. Their state's main concern is making sure that both schools find P5 homes. The academics at OU want the Big 10 but then there is an agenda there that is not sports oriented. Minor sports people at OU want the SEC as well. Better baseball and softball are important to them. So I wouldn't believe all of the Big 10 agenda talk at all. In the end a school needs its fan base to make its sports profitable. It's just good business.

There is one mainline ACC school that has actually held talks with us before, although because of different motives than their desire to leave, Virginia Tech. Wake is closer to UVa and UNC and Duke than is N.C. State (who is still pretty darn close to them). Virginia Tech historically has not been as close.

While ESPN doesn't want to let the schools that prop up their value go (F.S.U. and Clemson) Virginia Tech is a respectable program, but hardly a bell cow, and they would give the SEC virtually everything we could want in Virginia and penetration into West Virginia. I think that's the school that would add value. Market penetration is now moot. Most contract values are going to be driven by content and the SEC looks at whether schools add to, or drag down our averages. Wake Forest drags them all down but academics without giving us the any brand power like a Duke would.

Oklahoma State on the other hand offers a great deal, but is less acceptable to the college presidents of the SEC would want to enhance our academic standing overall. Personally I have no problem with OSU.

But the only way I could see Va Tech being in play would be if Texas (at ESPN's behest to have them in a more ESPN controlled conference and wanting to increase the carriage of the ACCN at the launch date) agreed to head to the ACC, but with buddies. That would probably encourage some kind of push to let the SEC have inroads into the ACC so that Texas could be included with enough slots to fill out an 16 school conference. Otherwise there aren't enough slots to give Texas a division of their own.

So you might see a 2010 consideration come back into play. Remember the N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC talk? Well that was because there was a bigger plan to move Texas and pals to the ACC in 2010 (before the GOR's and when Deloss Dodds was saying that Texas was looking East).

So if the SEC had to take the two Oklahoma's but also landed Va Tech and N.C. State, then Texas could move to the ACC with Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech in tow.

But this kind of thinking is now more passe. Why? Because ESPN is looking at bundling the ACCN with the SECN as far as the combined footprints are concerned, and because content (meaning brand on brand games) are going to provide the bigger payouts in a streaming world so market footprint size is much less relevant.

My wife works for a school of Vet Med and personally I see a great deal of fit for Oklahoma State, and Iowa State but sports realignment probably won't go in that direction.

And the SEC has another issue, which is closer to my heart, Auburn belongs in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were all annual games that we have lost due to realignment. We are the farthest point Eastward that any West Team has to go regularly. Gainesville and Knoxville a much closer drives for our fans than Arkansas or Texas A&M. So the benefit in adding two to the East, especially if they are strong brands, is that it makes a move of Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West that much more likely.

That would essentially unite the old core of the SEC in the East, and unite the old rivals of the SWC plus Oklahoma in the West. That's a much more marketable package of divisions. So I wouldn't be surprised if for one reason or another we land Oklahoma State, but I seriously doubt that Wake would even receive consideration. If we are that desperate to get into North Carolina (and we are not) then East Carolina would be a better option by most metrics other than academics and that won't be happening either.

In a streaming world the options change. In 2010 Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have been the two most valuable ACC schools the SEC would have wanted to land. In 2018 and forward Clemson and Florida State become the two most valuable ACC schools to us. Those two against an SEC schedule are money in the bank in a streaming world.

But ESPN will never let them go because the value of the ACC would tank. There are only two schools which could add more value for the SEC, Oklahoma and Texas. Landing just one of them cements us in the top earning position moving forward. Oklahoma would be a much easier fit than Texas, so if taking OSU is the price then the way people need to look at it is that we get the #2 brand from the Big 12 (#7 in the nation) along with the #4 brand value wise in the Big 12 (about #38th nationally) and as a pairing that's really solid.

Changes in conference scheduling would need to be made or else you’ll end up with a conference that contains two separate conferences per current NCAA scheduling rules.

If this doesn’t get worked out, it might be hard to find enough votes for any further candidates .

(04-18-2018 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

I get your guiding point, JR, and agree about keeping threads relatively on topic. But dang, I am not a B12 purist when it comes to SEC expansion. I suppose living on the far east side of the conference influences that.
My idea would be one add on the west side, one add on the east side. It keeps the divisional divide, basically impacted by one add each. OK, one realizes the inflexibilities with the GoRs and such.
My choices, out-of-the-box thinking, maybe too out there, are oSu and get this--Wake Forest. Does contiguous market penetration still matter? Maybe staying away from UT and OU perpetual drama would not be all bad; particularly if their hearts and ambitions are elsewhere.

A family member is an oSu Vet grad. I like oSu, visited there. Wake? When time comes, maybe Wake would be the easiest to break-away from the NC-4. Winston-Salem is a wonderful location, not specifically in the academic triangle. Wake has good academics and quality professional schools. Unfortunately, Wake Forest would need to double Grove Stadium, just 31,000 seats, and find fannies to take the seats. A profound change, and a bit risk-taking, could possibly do that. Also, undergraduate enrollment is the smallest in P5. Yet, politically, the ACC may realize they have one too many schools in NC, and Wake would be the easiest to relinqish. Heck, they could be a private school companion for Vandy, whom they have often played. Two private schools in the SEC east? Well, some unbalanced oddity has to happen when expanding. It may work better than expected. UNC, NCSU, and Duke just ain't going to break, and Wake's bond with them is heavily security-oriented. Deal-cutting, external to a GoR, can be attempted somewhere.

So, again, pardon the half and half approach, and the odd picks, but being unorthodox happens....once in awhile. No diversion was intended. What fits is quite subjective and mixture can be an option, perhaps naming other schools.

If put to the question, most of the Oklahoma fan base would choose the SEC because of proximity and ease of travel. Their state's main concern is making sure that both schools find P5 homes. The academics at OU want the Big 10 but then there is an agenda there that is not sports oriented. Minor sports people at OU want the SEC as well. Better baseball and softball are important to them. So I wouldn't believe all of the Big 10 agenda talk at all. In the end a school needs its fan base to make its sports profitable. It's just good business.

There is one mainline ACC school that has actually held talks with us before, although because of different motives than their desire to leave, Virginia Tech. Wake is closer to UVa and UNC and Duke than is N.C. State (who is still pretty darn close to them). Virginia Tech historically has not been as close.

While ESPN doesn't want to let the schools that prop up their value go (F.S.U. and Clemson) Virginia Tech is a respectable program, but hardly a bell cow, and they would give the SEC virtually everything we could want in Virginia and penetration into West Virginia. I think that's the school that would add value. Market penetration is now moot. Most contract values are going to be driven by content and the SEC looks at whether schools add to, or drag down our averages. Wake Forest drags them all down but academics without giving us the any brand power like a Duke would.

Oklahoma State on the other hand offers a great deal, but is less acceptable to the college presidents of the SEC would want to enhance our academic standing overall. Personally I have no problem with OSU.

But the only way I could see Va Tech being in play would be if Texas (at ESPN's behest to have them in a more ESPN controlled conference and wanting to increase the carriage of the ACCN at the launch date) agreed to head to the ACC, but with buddies. That would probably encourage some kind of push to let the SEC have inroads into the ACC so that Texas could be included with enough slots to fill out an 16 school conference. Otherwise there aren't enough slots to give Texas a division of their own.

So you might see a 2010 consideration come back into play. Remember the N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC talk? Well that was because there was a bigger plan to move Texas and pals to the ACC in 2010 (before the GOR's and when Deloss Dodds was saying that Texas was looking East).

So if the SEC had to take the two Oklahoma's but also landed Va Tech and N.C. State, then Texas could move to the ACC with Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech in tow.

But this kind of thinking is now more passe. Why? Because ESPN is looking at bundling the ACCN with the SECN as far as the combined footprints are concerned, and because content (meaning brand on brand games) are going to provide the bigger payouts in a streaming world so market footprint size is much less relevant.

My wife works for a school of Vet Med and personally I see a great deal of fit for Oklahoma State, and Iowa State but sports realignment probably won't go in that direction.

And the SEC has another issue, which is closer to my heart, Auburn belongs in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were all annual games that we have lost due to realignment. We are the farthest point Eastward that any West Team has to go regularly. Gainesville and Knoxville a much closer drives for our fans than Arkansas or Texas A&M. So the benefit in adding two to the East, especially if they are strong brands, is that it makes a move of Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West that much more likely.

That would essentially unite the old core of the SEC in the East, and unite the old rivals of the SWC plus Oklahoma in the West. That's a much more marketable package of divisions. So I wouldn't be surprised if for one reason or another we land Oklahoma State, but I seriously doubt that Wake would even receive consideration. If we are that desperate to get into North Carolina (and we are not) then East Carolina would be a better option by most metrics other than academics and that won't be happening either.

In a streaming world the options change. In 2010 Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have been the two most valuable ACC schools the SEC would have wanted to land. In 2018 and forward Clemson and Florida State become the two most valuable ACC schools to us. Those two against an SEC schedule are money in the bank in a streaming world.

But ESPN will never let them go because the value of the ACC would tank. There are only two schools which could add more value for the SEC, Oklahoma and Texas. Landing just one of them cements us in the top earning position moving forward. Oklahoma would be a much easier fit than Texas, so if taking OSU is the price then the way people need to look at it is that we get the #2 brand from the Big 12 (#7 in the nation) along with the #4 brand value wise in the Big 12 (about #38th nationally) and as a pairing that's really solid.

You are all over the place JR.
Let me make it simple for you just to play along with your Va. Tech scenario.

Big 12 (which I believe will still be standing after 2025) adds:
Louisville
Arkansas
Missouri
(12 teams)

SEC adds:
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
(14 teams)

ACC loses 2:
Virginia Tech
Louisville
(12 teams)
Notre Dame remains a partial

(04-18-2018 02:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

I get your guiding point, JR, and agree about keeping threads relatively on topic. But dang, I am not a B12 purist when it comes to SEC expansion. I suppose living on the far east side of the conference influences that.
My idea would be one add on the west side, one add on the east side. It keeps the divisional divide, basically impacted by one add each. OK, one realizes the inflexibilities with the GoRs and such.
My choices, out-of-the-box thinking, maybe too out there, are oSu and get this--Wake Forest. Does contiguous market penetration still matter? Maybe staying away from UT and OU perpetual drama would not be all bad; particularly if their hearts and ambitions are elsewhere.

A family member is an oSu Vet grad. I like oSu, visited there. Wake? When time comes, maybe Wake would be the easiest to break-away from the NC-4. Winston-Salem is a wonderful location, not specifically in the academic triangle. Wake has good academics and quality professional schools. Unfortunately, Wake Forest would need to double Grove Stadium, just 31,000 seats, and find fannies to take the seats. A profound change, and a bit risk-taking, could possibly do that. Also, undergraduate enrollment is the smallest in P5. Yet, politically, the ACC may realize they have one too many schools in NC, and Wake would be the easiest to relinqish. Heck, they could be a private school companion for Vandy, whom they have often played. Two private schools in the SEC east? Well, some unbalanced oddity has to happen when expanding. It may work better than expected. UNC, NCSU, and Duke just ain't going to break, and Wake's bond with them is heavily security-oriented. Deal-cutting, external to a GoR, can be attempted somewhere.

So, again, pardon the half and half approach, and the odd picks, but being unorthodox happens....once in awhile. No diversion was intended. What fits is quite subjective and mixture can be an option, perhaps naming other schools.

If put to the question, most of the Oklahoma fan base would choose the SEC because of proximity and ease of travel. Their state's main concern is making sure that both schools find P5 homes. The academics at OU want the Big 10 but then there is an agenda there that is not sports oriented. Minor sports people at OU want the SEC as well. Better baseball and softball are important to them. So I wouldn't believe all of the Big 10 agenda talk at all. In the end a school needs its fan base to make its sports profitable. It's just good business.

There is one mainline ACC school that has actually held talks with us before, although because of different motives than their desire to leave, Virginia Tech. Wake is closer to UVa and UNC and Duke than is N.C. State (who is still pretty darn close to them). Virginia Tech historically has not been as close.

While ESPN doesn't want to let the schools that prop up their value go (F.S.U. and Clemson) Virginia Tech is a respectable program, but hardly a bell cow, and they would give the SEC virtually everything we could want in Virginia and penetration into West Virginia. I think that's the school that would add value. Market penetration is now moot. Most contract values are going to be driven by content and the SEC looks at whether schools add to, or drag down our averages. Wake Forest drags them all down but academics without giving us the any brand power like a Duke would.

Oklahoma State on the other hand offers a great deal, but is less acceptable to the college presidents of the SEC would want to enhance our academic standing overall. Personally I have no problem with OSU.

But the only way I could see Va Tech being in play would be if Texas (at ESPN's behest to have them in a more ESPN controlled conference and wanting to increase the carriage of the ACCN at the launch date) agreed to head to the ACC, but with buddies. That would probably encourage some kind of push to let the SEC have inroads into the ACC so that Texas could be included with enough slots to fill out an 16 school conference. Otherwise there aren't enough slots to give Texas a division of their own.

So you might see a 2010 consideration come back into play. Remember the N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC talk? Well that was because there was a bigger plan to move Texas and pals to the ACC in 2010 (before the GOR's and when Deloss Dodds was saying that Texas was looking East).

So if the SEC had to take the two Oklahoma's but also landed Va Tech and N.C. State, then Texas could move to the ACC with Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech in tow.

But this kind of thinking is now more passe. Why? Because ESPN is looking at bundling the ACCN with the SECN as far as the combined footprints are concerned, and because content (meaning brand on brand games) are going to provide the bigger payouts in a streaming world so market footprint size is much less relevant.

My wife works for a school of Vet Med and personally I see a great deal of fit for Oklahoma State, and Iowa State but sports realignment probably won't go in that direction.

And the SEC has another issue, which is closer to my heart, Auburn belongs in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were all annual games that we have lost due to realignment. We are the farthest point Eastward that any West Team has to go regularly. Gainesville and Knoxville a much closer drives for our fans than Arkansas or Texas A&M. So the benefit in adding two to the East, especially if they are strong brands, is that it makes a move of Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West that much more likely.

That would essentially unite the old core of the SEC in the East, and unite the old rivals of the SWC plus Oklahoma in the West. That's a much more marketable package of divisions. So I wouldn't be surprised if for one reason or another we land Oklahoma State, but I seriously doubt that Wake would even receive consideration. If we are that desperate to get into North Carolina (and we are not) then East Carolina would be a better option by most metrics other than academics and that won't be happening either.

In a streaming world the options change. In 2010 Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have been the two most valuable ACC schools the SEC would have wanted to land. In 2018 and forward Clemson and Florida State become the two most valuable ACC schools to us. Those two against an SEC schedule are money in the bank in a streaming world.

But ESPN will never let them go because the value of the ACC would tank. There are only two schools which could add more value for the SEC, Oklahoma and Texas. Landing just one of them cements us in the top earning position moving forward. Oklahoma would be a much easier fit than Texas, so if taking OSU is the price then the way people need to look at it is that we get the #2 brand from the Big 12 (#7 in the nation) along with the #4 brand value wise in the Big 12 (about #38th nationally) and as a pairing that's really solid.

You are all over the place JR.
Let me make it simple for you just to play along with your Va. Tech scenario.

Big 12 (which I believe will still be standing after 2025) adds:
Louisville
Arkansas
Missouri
(12 teams)

SEC adds:
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
(14 teams)

ACC loses 2:
Virginia Tech
Louisville
(12 teams)
Notre Dame remains a partial

I wasn't all over the place. I discussed his suggestions and came back to OU and OSU as being the most likely, which they are. But I will admit that adding Va Tech and WVU is an intriguing possibility. It's just that Va Tech covers most of West Virginia as well.

If you want to brainstorm then what if Va Tech went to the Big 10 who exchanged them for Nebraska to the Big 12. West Virginia came to the SEC in exchange for Missouri to the Big 12. And Notre Dame joined in full.

Then the Big 12 is at 12, the Big 10 remains at 14, the SEC remains at 14, and the ACC is at 14.

Then the Big 12 adds Louisville and B.Y.U. to get to 14. The ACC back fills with UConn. and now everyone is at 14 except the PAC.

If we are going to discuss things that will never happen why not go whole hog?

The play for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then if Texas wants to be reunited with three of their rivals they can come along too, and maybe even bring Tech.

(04-18-2018 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The play for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then if Texas wants to be reunited with three of their rivals they can come along too, and maybe even bring Tech.

Of course this is just opinion and conjecture:
The real play for the SEC is Texas and always has been.
All of the noise about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is just that .....noise. The SEC has been trying to maneuver the 'Horns into a corner since they took Arkansas out of a shaky SWC and engineered its collapse.
Don't get me wrong, the SEC would love to have Oklahoma, but their preference would be that Texas would be the lead dog pulling that sled.
Somehow a compromise will be worked out between ESPN, Tejas and the SEC before long as the 2025 deadline is looming and final negotiations will need to start very soon.

(04-19-2018 05:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The play for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then if Texas wants to be reunited with three of their rivals they can come along too, and maybe even bring Tech.

Of course this is just opinion and conjecture:
The real play for the SEC is Texas and always has been.
All of the noise about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is just that .....noise. The SEC has been trying to maneuver the 'Horns into a corner since they took Arkansas out of a shaky SWC and engineered its collapse.
Don't get me wrong, the SEC would love to have Oklahoma, but their preference would be that Texas would be the lead dog pulling that sled.
Somehow a compromise will be worked out between ESPN, Tejas and the SEC before long as the 2025 deadline is looming and final negotiations will need to start very soon.

Not really. It's about sculpting the conference. Ideally we would pick up Oklahoma and Texas and they would become the West's version of Alabama and Auburn who would move to the EAST.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Those are two extremely balanced well aligned conferences.

L.S.U. and Mississippi schools help form the New West. The East is the Old Core SEC.

But if Texas and Oklahoma just won't make the move without their buddies then moving to 3 divisions of 6 still makes a lot of sense and still keeps balance in the conference:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt


In this lineup you have a true Western Division, a true Central Division and a true Eastern Division all with relative balance.

It's one thing to add a couple of schools to get markets and move to 16. But the smarter moves always include moving with a purpose to balance and strengthen your conference.

(04-18-2018 01:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 11:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Alright. We have an old thread buried a few pages deep called "If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?

This thread is about the Big 12. Start another thread if you want to talk about the ACC.

Now if you want to talk about Big 12 schools that you think might prefer the ACC, or that the ACC could benefit from that will be close enough to keep this thread on topic.

But the readers who daily follow this thread don't give a hoot about whether Duke or North Carolina go to the SEC or not.

I get your guiding point, JR, and agree about keeping threads relatively on topic. But dang, I am not a B12 purist when it comes to SEC expansion. I suppose living on the far east side of the conference influences that.
My idea would be one add on the west side, one add on the east side. It keeps the divisional divide, basically impacted by one add each. OK, one realizes the inflexibilities with the GoRs and such.
My choices, out-of-the-box thinking, maybe too out there, are oSu and get this--Wake Forest. Does contiguous market penetration still matter? Maybe staying away from UT and OU perpetual drama would not be all bad; particularly if their hearts and ambitions are elsewhere.

A family member is an oSu Vet grad. I like oSu, visited there. Wake? When time comes, maybe Wake would be the easiest to break-away from the NC-4. Winston-Salem is a wonderful location, not specifically in the academic triangle. Wake has good academics and quality professional schools. Unfortunately, Wake Forest would need to double Grove Stadium, just 31,000 seats, and find fannies to take the seats. A profound change, and a bit risk-taking, could possibly do that. Also, undergraduate enrollment is the smallest in P5. Yet, politically, the ACC may realize they have one too many schools in NC, and Wake would be the easiest to relinqish. Heck, they could be a private school companion for Vandy, whom they have often played. Two private schools in the SEC east? Well, some unbalanced oddity has to happen when expanding. It may work better than expected. UNC, NCSU, and Duke just ain't going to break, and Wake's bond with them is heavily security-oriented. Deal-cutting, external to a GoR, can be attempted somewhere.

So, again, pardon the half and half approach, and the odd picks, but being unorthodox happens....once in awhile. No diversion was intended. What fits is quite subjective and mixture can be an option, perhaps naming other schools.

If put to the question, most of the Oklahoma fan base would choose the SEC because of proximity and ease of travel. Their state's main concern is making sure that both schools find P5 homes. The academics at OU want the Big 10 but then there is an agenda there that is not sports oriented. Minor sports people at OU want the SEC as well. Better baseball and softball are important to them. So I wouldn't believe all of the Big 10 agenda talk at all. In the end a school needs its fan base to make its sports profitable. It's just good business.

There is one mainline ACC school that has actually held talks with us before, although because of different motives than their desire to leave, Virginia Tech. Wake is closer to UVa and UNC and Duke than is N.C. State (who is still pretty darn close to them). Virginia Tech historically has not been as close.

While ESPN doesn't want to let the schools that prop up their value go (F.S.U. and Clemson) Virginia Tech is a respectable program, but hardly a bell cow, and they would give the SEC virtually everything we could want in Virginia and penetration into West Virginia. I think that's the school that would add value. Market penetration is now moot. Most contract values are going to be driven by content and the SEC looks at whether schools add to, or drag down our averages. Wake Forest drags them all down but academics without giving us the any brand power like a Duke would.

Oklahoma State on the other hand offers a great deal, but is less acceptable to the college presidents of the SEC would want to enhance our academic standing overall. Personally I have no problem with OSU.

But the only way I could see Va Tech being in play would be if Texas (at ESPN's behest to have them in a more ESPN controlled conference and wanting to increase the carriage of the ACCN at the launch date) agreed to head to the ACC, but with buddies. That would probably encourage some kind of push to let the SEC have inroads into the ACC so that Texas could be included with enough slots to fill out an 16 school conference. Otherwise there aren't enough slots to give Texas a division of their own.

So you might see a 2010 consideration come back into play. Remember the N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC talk? that was because there was a bigger plan to move Texas and pals to the ACC in 2010 (before the GOR's and when Deloss Dodds was saying that Texas was looking East).

So if the SEC had to take the two Oklahoma's but also landed Va Tech and N.C. State, then Texas could move to the ACC with Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech in tow.

But this kind of thinking is now more passe. Why? Because ESPN is looking at bundling the ACCN with the SECN as far as the combined footprints are concerned, and because content (meaning brand on brand games) are going to provide the bigger payouts in a streaming world so market footprint size is much less relevant.

My wife works for a school of Vet Med and personally I see a great deal of fit for Oklahoma State, and Iowa State but sports realignment probably won't go in that direction.

And the SEC has another issue, which is closer to my heart, Auburn belongs in the East. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were all annual games that we have lost due to realignment. We are the farthest point Eastward that any West Team has to go regularly. Gainesville and Knoxville a much closer drives for our fans than Arkansas or Texas A&M. So the benefit in adding two to the East, especially if they are strong brands, is that it makes a move of Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West that much more likely.

That would essentially unite the old core of the SEC in the East, and unite the old rivals of the SWC plus Oklahoma in the West. That's a much more marketable package of divisions. So I wouldn't be surprised if for one reason or another we land Oklahoma State, but I seriously doubt that Wake would even receive consideration. If we are that desperate to get into North Carolina (and we are not) then East Carolina would be a better option by most metrics other than academics and that won't be happening either.

In a streaming world the options change. In 2010 Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have been the two most valuable ACC schools the SEC would have wanted to land. In 2018 and forward Clemson and Florida State become the two most valuable ACC schools to us. Those two against an SEC schedule are money in the bank in a streaming world.

But ESPN will never let them go because the value of the ACC would tank. There are only two schools which could add more value for the SEC, Oklahoma and Texas. Landing just one of them cements us in the top earning position moving forward. Oklahoma would be a much easier fit than Texas, so if taking OSU is the price then the way people need to look at it is that we get the #2 brand from the Big 12 (#7 in the nation) along with the #4 brand value wise in the Big 12 (about #38th nationally) and as a pairing that's really solid.

When DeLoss was looking east, he had in mind Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
Then Duke put the kibosh on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and after much dickering the only four Big 12 teams that the ACC found acceptable were Texas, Texas A&M, Kansas and Iowa State, a far cry from what Doss had in mind.
Doss then turned his attention west, but A&M had already set its sights on the SEC.

The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

(04-19-2018 05:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The play for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then if Texas wants to be reunited with three of their rivals they can come along too, and maybe even bring Tech.

Of course this is just opinion and conjecture:
The real play for the SEC is Texas and always has been.
All of the noise about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is just that .....noise. The SEC has been trying to maneuver the 'Horns into a corner since they took Arkansas out of a shaky SWC and engineered its collapse.
Don't get me wrong, the SEC would love to have Oklahoma, but their preference would be that Texas would be the lead dog pulling that sled.
Somehow a compromise will be worked out between ESPN, Tejas and the SEC before long as the 2025 deadline is looming and final negotiations will need to start very soon.

The SWC was collapsing on itself and was the was always near, just needed the nail in the coffin:

1. Oklahoma and Georgia vs NCAA. TV revenue deals now controlled by the schools changed the entire philosophy of how to structure an athletic conference.

2. There was some dead weight. Rice, TCU, Houston, SMU (especially after the death penalty) were just simply dead weight whose fan base did not support them at NCAA Div 1 levels.

Arkansas looked around in the 1980’s. The Big 8 were not that interested in the hogs; I believe it was Nebraska that was firmly against us but I can’t find those articles anymore. Also, Arkansas did not like being the only non-Texas team in the conference mostly due to referee assignments. Arkansas would always play a Texas team will an entire Texas based referee crew. When Arkansas asked for an Arkansas based official or two to be on that crew the SWC declared it an unfair advantage for us, not the Texas School.

(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.

(04-22-2018 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.

What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

(04-23-2018 08:27 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.

What do you think if P5/FBS Conferences agree to impose limits on themselves in terms of conference size? Ok, off topic, but if the limit is 16 members per conference, that would be most interesting. The SEC, BIG, and the ACC would almost immediately go there. With this in mind, OU-oSu to the SEC could be looked at as expansion closure.

You spoke earlier of availability. Well if availability is an issue to the East that limits us to expanding out of the Big 12 or dipping into the lower tiers. I don't see much of value in the lower tiers, at least not any programs mature enough to be depended upon to carry their own weight in all areas of conference membership. So if the Big 12 is really it the SEC would work hard to land Texas and Oklahoma to finish out at 16. If we are somehow limited and can only take 1 of the two leaders the more economical move would be Texas. They along with the Aggies give us pretty much everything we would want out of the Lone Star state and it would free us for an addition from another state.

I really don't see a fit for Kansas or Iowa State with the SEC. So if we only take 1 of the preferred targets and it's Texas who's #2 if it isn't Oklahoma? Now I'm getting to your specific question here. Of the remaining options with Texas you would have Oklahoma State as the 4th/sometimes 5th most productive athletic department in the Big 12 and a top 30ish revenue producer in the NCAA, or T.C.U. small home attendance, large market, and competitive in the 3 money sports addition, or the 3rd State school in Texas, or West Virginia. Out of those Tech is a distance issue, and without Oklahoma the Cowboys make sense as the second pick athletically speaking. W.V.U. doesn't deliver the market size OSU would even though WVU is the flagship school of its state. Texas gives you Dallas so you don't need to duplicate with T.C.U..

So if you land Oklahoma and not Texas who should be #2? Perhaps the combo of Oklahoma and T.C.U. gives you the most market penetration in a large city, but Oklahoma and A&M give you that. Texas Tech is still too far away. W.V.U. keeps you from being able to make the divisional shifts you would like since one gets added to both sides Missouri is still an issue. OSU duplicates the state, but has competitive programs in almost all sports.

While not ideal, if OU wants to stay with OSU it is at least a marketable rivalry and together with Arkansas and A&M they deliver DFW. So if Oklahoma and State are the final SEC move it works for us on a number of levels although it is not ideal. Gaining the Sooners locks the SEC into the top position in revenue and branding hands down. The WSJ only has three schools valued at over 1 Billion in economic impact for their regions: Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. Alabama is sniffing it but not quite in. So from a strategic point of view if the SEC can only have 1 of UT and OU and the one we can have is Oklahoma, there's not a statistically valid reason to take any of T.C.U., O.S.U., T.T.U., or W.V.U. over each other. They are all lesser brands with varying strengths and weaknesses. So what difference does it make which one is selected, especially if the prize favors one over another. If we round out to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma state I can live with that.

But if we could have both Texas and OU, I believe that if Oklahoma commits to the SEC, and since no other conference will be taking OSU, that Texas will see the situation as their last chance to be reunited with historic rivals and that they will step into the #16 slot. Or that if Texas commits to the SEC that Oklahoma will be reticent to move North without regular games in Texas other than perhaps the RRR and that they will step into that #16 slot.