Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1681
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-30-2018 10:43 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.

The PAC window is within a year of the Big 10's. That's about as good as the Big 10 could hope for. And I agree that Colorado/Oklahoma would be a dynamic move by the Big 10 restoring two of Nebraska's historic rivals and at the same time landing a much better market and creating a bridge West should they ever need one.
07-30-2018 10:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1682
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-30-2018 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:43 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.

The PAC window is within a year of the Big 10's. That's about as good as the Big 10 could hope for. And I agree that Colorado/Oklahoma would be a dynamic move by the Big 10 restoring two of Nebraska's historic rivals and at the same time landing a much better market and creating a bridge West should they ever need one.

UT-KU.............SEC
OU-Col............BIG
ND (ft)-WVU...ACC

ISU, KSU, oSu, TTU, CSU to the PAC?
PAC would not go for this because it is not academic elite enough. However, if the PAC's network and sponsorship values keep dropping comparatively, this could be a bold, but worthy, move.
07-31-2018 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1683
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-31-2018 11:42 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:43 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.

The PAC window is within a year of the Big 10's. That's about as good as the Big 10 could hope for. And I agree that Colorado/Oklahoma would be a dynamic move by the Big 10 restoring two of Nebraska's historic rivals and at the same time landing a much better market and creating a bridge West should they ever need one.

UT-KU.............SEC
OU-Col............BIG
ND (ft)-WVU...ACC

ISU, KSU, oSu, TTU, CSU to the PAC?
PAC would not go for this because it is not academic elite enough. However, if the PAC's network and sponsorship values keep dropping comparatively, this could be a bold, but worthy, move.
Maybe if they were going to be bold the mix would be ISU, KSU, OSU?, TTU, TCU. TCU is adding a medical college and their main campus academic freedom is unrelated to the seminary.
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2018 12:05 PM by JRsec.)
07-31-2018 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1684
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I've been giving a great deal of thought as to what would be the most efficient way for the SEC to add schools should we grow again.

There are three acceptable pairs that require no analysis per se:

Texas and Oklahoma

Texas and Kansas

Oklahoma and Kansas

Texas and Texas Tech would rank as a fourth most valuable paring.

If we can't land one of the first three pairs, then our most efficient option would be to take Texas and Texas Tech and for these reasons:

1. They would ad the fourth most value. Remember we are no longer in a new market subscription fee driven value system. Content which means brand on brand play, and the actual number of eyeballs on an event will now be what drives payouts. Tapping 28 million potentially 3 times a week pays. And will pay for all sports.

2. They would be an addition that ESPN shouldn't balk over because it gives ESPN/SECN/& the SEC a monopoly over the P5 state schools in Texas. That's 28 million viewers which most week would have a reason to tune in as many as 3 times to watch games involving their schools. If you double dip the Oklahoma school (a pairing that would be 7th in value out of the Big 12) then you double dip a state of 4 million. If you take the two Texas schools you triple dip 28 million. So that add gives ESPN and the SEC the hold on the highest possible advertising rates in that state with a region of interest that stretches into Arkansas and Louisiana.

3. Even if Baylor and T.C.U. find P5 homes their recruiting advantage of being in the same conference as UT would be over. And it distances the 2 Oklahoma schools from having the same cachet in Texas as they had by being in the same conference. So things should pick up for Texas, and remain strong for A&M and improve for Tech. Arkansas and L.S.U. would pick up the inside track on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Therefore it should benefit Texas in that it reduces effectively the number of Texas P5 schools they compete with for recruits from 5 to 3.

4. It adds to ESPN's repertoire of Spanish language games of interest thereby boosting attention to the 22 stations in Mexico that carry the Spanish version of the SECN.

I've been okay with OSU / OU as a pairing. But Texas/Texas Tech would be a superior pairing in terms of earning potential in almost every way.

So if we can't land one of the first 3 pairings, I think our push ought to be for Texas and Texas Tech.
08-10-2018 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Offline
Banned

Posts: 844
Joined: Jul 2018
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #1685
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-10-2018 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've been giving a great deal of thought as to what would be the most efficient way for the SEC to add schools should we grow again.

There are three acceptable pairs that require no analysis per se:

Texas and Oklahoma

Texas and Kansas

Oklahoma and Kansas

Texas and Texas Tech would rank as a fourth most valuable paring.

If we can't land one of the first three pairs, then our most efficient option would be to take Texas and Texas Tech and for these reasons:

1. They would ad the fourth most value. Remember we are no longer in a new market subscription fee driven value system. Content which means brand on brand play, and the actual number of eyeballs on an event will now be what drives payouts. Tapping 28 million potentially 3 times a week pays. And will pay for all sports.

2. They would be an addition that ESPN shouldn't balk over because it gives ESPN/SECN/& the SEC a monopoly over the P5 state schools in Texas. That's 28 million viewers which most week would have a reason to tune in as many as 3 times to watch games involving their schools. If you double dip the Oklahoma school (a pairing that would be 7th in value out of the Big 12) then you double dip a state of 4 million. If you take the two Texas schools you triple dip 28 million. So that add gives ESPN and the SEC the hold on the highest possible advertising rates in that state with a region of interest that stretches into Arkansas and Louisiana.

3. Even if Baylor and T.C.U. find P5 homes their recruiting advantage of being in the same conference as UT would be over. And it distances the 2 Oklahoma schools from having the same cachet in Texas as they had by being in the same conference. So things should pick up for Texas, and remain strong for A&M and improve for Tech. Arkansas and L.S.U. would pick up the inside track on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Therefore it should benefit Texas in that it reduces effectively the number of Texas P5 schools they compete with for recruits from 5 to 3.

4. It adds to ESPN's repertoire of Spanish language games of interest thereby boosting attention to the 22 stations in Mexico that carry the Spanish version of the SECN.

I've been okay with OSU / OU as a pairing. But Texas/Texas Tech would be a superior pairing in terms of earning potential in almost every way.

So if we can't land one of the first 3 pairings, I think our push ought to be for Texas and Texas Tech.

Adding Tech and UT locks down the state of Texas for the SEC. UT, A&M and Tech have the 3 largest fan bases in Texas and this state will bleed SEC.
08-11-2018 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1686
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-11-2018 09:47 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've been giving a great deal of thought as to what would be the most efficient way for the SEC to add schools should we grow again.

There are three acceptable pairs that require no analysis per se:

Texas and Oklahoma

Texas and Kansas

Oklahoma and Kansas

Texas and Texas Tech would rank as a fourth most valuable paring.

If we can't land one of the first three pairs, then our most efficient option would be to take Texas and Texas Tech and for these reasons:

1. They would ad the fourth most value. Remember we are no longer in a new market subscription fee driven value system. Content which means brand on brand play, and the actual number of eyeballs on an event will now be what drives payouts. Tapping 28 million potentially 3 times a week pays. And will pay for all sports.

2. They would be an addition that ESPN shouldn't balk over because it gives ESPN/SECN/& the SEC a monopoly over the P5 state schools in Texas. That's 28 million viewers which most week would have a reason to tune in as many as 3 times to watch games involving their schools. If you double dip the Oklahoma school (a pairing that would be 7th in value out of the Big 12) then you double dip a state of 4 million. If you take the two Texas schools you triple dip 28 million. So that add gives ESPN and the SEC the hold on the highest possible advertising rates in that state with a region of interest that stretches into Arkansas and Louisiana.

3. Even if Baylor and T.C.U. find P5 homes their recruiting advantage of being in the same conference as UT would be over. And it distances the 2 Oklahoma schools from having the same cachet in Texas as they had by being in the same conference. So things should pick up for Texas, and remain strong for A&M and improve for Tech. Arkansas and L.S.U. would pick up the inside track on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Therefore it should benefit Texas in that it reduces effectively the number of Texas P5 schools they compete with for recruits from 5 to 3.

4. It adds to ESPN's repertoire of Spanish language games of interest thereby boosting attention to the 22 stations in Mexico that carry the Spanish version of the SECN.

I've been okay with OSU / OU as a pairing. But Texas/Texas Tech would be a superior pairing in terms of earning potential in almost every way.

So if we can't land one of the first 3 pairings, I think our push ought to be for Texas and Texas Tech.

Adding Tech and UT locks down the state of Texas for the SEC. UT, A&M and Tech have the 3 largest fan bases in Texas and this state will bleed SEC.
I keep wondering, which schools are in preliminary discussions with which conferences, off the record of course. With the GoR in the B12 expiring in a few years, I expect chit-chats and back channel overtures are already occurring. They will break conference rules if such discussions get disclosed.

There's little to nothing out there in terms of substantiated rumors. I believe some sports writers and fans, look at the power centers and communicate what appears to be the realistic options. When it comes down to it, there are only 4 or 5 scenarios that would be near plausible at this point.

What the SEC does would relate to what the BIG tries to do or declines doing. Whether or not the PAC attempts a bold leap, is unclear. The ACC may or may not get involved.
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2018 12:52 PM by OdinFrigg.)
08-11-2018 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1687
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-11-2018 12:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-11-2018 09:47 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've been giving a great deal of thought as to what would be the most efficient way for the SEC to add schools should we grow again.

There are three acceptable pairs that require no analysis per se:

Texas and Oklahoma

Texas and Kansas

Oklahoma and Kansas

Texas and Texas Tech would rank as a fourth most valuable paring.

If we can't land one of the first three pairs, then our most efficient option would be to take Texas and Texas Tech and for these reasons:

1. They would ad the fourth most value. Remember we are no longer in a new market subscription fee driven value system. Content which means brand on brand play, and the actual number of eyeballs on an event will now be what drives payouts. Tapping 28 million potentially 3 times a week pays. And will pay for all sports.

2. They would be an addition that ESPN shouldn't balk over because it gives ESPN/SECN/& the SEC a monopoly over the P5 state schools in Texas. That's 28 million viewers which most week would have a reason to tune in as many as 3 times to watch games involving their schools. If you double dip the Oklahoma school (a pairing that would be 7th in value out of the Big 12) then you double dip a state of 4 million. If you take the two Texas schools you triple dip 28 million. So that add gives ESPN and the SEC the hold on the highest possible advertising rates in that state with a region of interest that stretches into Arkansas and Louisiana.

3. Even if Baylor and T.C.U. find P5 homes their recruiting advantage of being in the same conference as UT would be over. And it distances the 2 Oklahoma schools from having the same cachet in Texas as they had by being in the same conference. So things should pick up for Texas, and remain strong for A&M and improve for Tech. Arkansas and L.S.U. would pick up the inside track on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Therefore it should benefit Texas in that it reduces effectively the number of Texas P5 schools they compete with for recruits from 5 to 3.

4. It adds to ESPN's repertoire of Spanish language games of interest thereby boosting attention to the 22 stations in Mexico that carry the Spanish version of the SECN.

I've been okay with OSU / OU as a pairing. But Texas/Texas Tech would be a superior pairing in terms of earning potential in almost every way.

So if we can't land one of the first 3 pairings, I think our push ought to be for Texas and Texas Tech.

Adding Tech and UT locks down the state of Texas for the SEC. UT, A&M and Tech have the 3 largest fan bases in Texas and this state will bleed SEC.
I keep wondering, which schools are in preliminary discussions with which conferences, off the record of course. With the GoR in the B12 expiring in a few years, I expect chit-chats and back channel overtures are already occurring. They will break conference rules if such discussions get disclosed.


Probably all of them have feelers out, but only the top players are likely to have had back channel discussions substantive enough to know where they would stand in the event of a movement.


There's little to nothing out there in terms of substantiated rumors. I believe some sports writers and fans, look at the power centers and communicate what appears to be the realistic options. When it comes down to it, there are only 4 or 5 scenarios that would be near plausible at this point.


Yes. And four or five scenarios for the top targets is probably right. Second school possibilities may vary a bit more.


What the SEC does would relate to what the BIG tries to do or declines doing. Whether or not the PAC attempts a bold leap, is unclear. The ACC may or may not get involved.


The SEC might move first this time around if the targets are right. I agree that we might change our priorities if the Big 10 is particularly aggressive. I don't see the SEC being influenced by what the Big 10 might decline to do.

Whether the PAC attempts a bold move may depend on who is backing them and in order to be successful it would likely require the backing of a network or another carrier.

As long as Notre Dame is not wholly affiliated with the ACC their involvement in subsequent realignment will be oblique at best.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2018 12:41 PM by JRsec.)
08-12-2018 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #1688
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-31-2018 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2018 11:42 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:43 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.

The PAC window is within a year of the Big 10's. That's about as good as the Big 10 could hope for. And I agree that Colorado/Oklahoma would be a dynamic move by the Big 10 restoring two of Nebraska's historic rivals and at the same time landing a much better market and creating a bridge West should they ever need one.

UT-KU.............SEC
OU-Col............BIG
ND (ft)-WVU...ACC

ISU, KSU, oSu, TTU, CSU to the PAC?
PAC would not go for this because it is not academic elite enough. However, if the PAC's network and sponsorship values keep dropping comparatively, this could be a bold, but worthy, move.
Maybe if they were going to be bold the mix would be ISU, KSU, OSU?, TTU, TCU. TCU is adding a medical college and their main campus academic freedom is unrelated to the seminary.

Perhaps New Mexico could be in the mix? No other major conference has a presence there and also connects the rest of the conference to the southern plains states.

Replacing UC would be a tall order for them, either way. They may just go for a "Pac-11" with maybe a scheduling agreement with one of the two emerging superconferences. Perhaps that would be a form of compensation and they then wouldn't have to share money with 1 to 5 more programs.
08-19-2018 04:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1689
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-12-2018 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-11-2018 12:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(08-11-2018 09:47 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've been giving a great deal of thought as to what would be the most efficient way for the SEC to add schools should we grow again.

There are three acceptable pairs that require no analysis per se:

Texas and Oklahoma

Texas and Kansas

Oklahoma and Kansas

Texas and Texas Tech would rank as a fourth most valuable paring.

If we can't land one of the first three pairs, then our most efficient option would be to take Texas and Texas Tech and for these reasons:

1. They would ad the fourth most value. Remember we are no longer in a new market subscription fee driven value system. Content which means brand on brand play, and the actual number of eyeballs on an event will now be what drives payouts. Tapping 28 million potentially 3 times a week pays. And will pay for all sports.

2. They would be an addition that ESPN shouldn't balk over because it gives ESPN/SECN/& the SEC a monopoly over the P5 state schools in Texas. That's 28 million viewers which most week would have a reason to tune in as many as 3 times to watch games involving their schools. If you double dip the Oklahoma school (a pairing that would be 7th in value out of the Big 12) then you double dip a state of 4 million. If you take the two Texas schools you triple dip 28 million. So that add gives ESPN and the SEC the hold on the highest possible advertising rates in that state with a region of interest that stretches into Arkansas and Louisiana.

3. Even if Baylor and T.C.U. find P5 homes their recruiting advantage of being in the same conference as UT would be over. And it distances the 2 Oklahoma schools from having the same cachet in Texas as they had by being in the same conference. So things should pick up for Texas, and remain strong for A&M and improve for Tech. Arkansas and L.S.U. would pick up the inside track on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Therefore it should benefit Texas in that it reduces effectively the number of Texas P5 schools they compete with for recruits from 5 to 3.

4. It adds to ESPN's repertoire of Spanish language games of interest thereby boosting attention to the 22 stations in Mexico that carry the Spanish version of the SECN.

I've been okay with OSU / OU as a pairing. But Texas/Texas Tech would be a superior pairing in terms of earning potential in almost every way.

So if we can't land one of the first 3 pairings, I think our push ought to be for Texas and Texas Tech.

Adding Tech and UT locks down the state of Texas for the SEC. UT, A&M and Tech have the 3 largest fan bases in Texas and this state will bleed SEC.
I keep wondering, which schools are in preliminary discussions with which conferences, off the record of course. With the GoR in the B12 expiring in a few years, I expect chit-chats and back channel overtures are already occurring. They will break conference rules if such discussions get disclosed.


Probably all of them have feelers out, but only the top players are likely to have had back channel discussions substantive enough to know where they would stand in the event of a movement.


There's little to nothing out there in terms of substantiated rumors. I believe some sports writers and fans, look at the power centers and communicate what appears to be the realistic options. When it comes down to it, there are only 4 or 5 scenarios that would be near plausible at this point.


Yes. And four or five scenarios for the top targets is probably right. Second school possibilities may vary a bit more.


What the SEC does would relate to what the BIG tries to do or declines doing. Whether or not the PAC attempts a bold leap, is unclear. The ACC may or may not get involved.


The SEC might move first this time around if the targets are right. I agree that we might change our priorities if the Big 10 is particularly aggressive. I don't see the SEC being influenced by what the Big 10 might decline to do.

Whether the PAC attempts a bold move may depend on who is backing them and in order to be successful it would likely require the backing of a network or another carrier.

As long as Notre Dame is not wholly affiliated with the ACC their involvement in subsequent realignment will be oblique at best.

I think the PAC is in a weak position right now. The PAC Networks have no national coverage nor produce significant revenue. Some schools, like Cal, are having a very hard time to just get fans to show up to football games. There is probably further changes or further regression in the PAC-12 during this next round of realignment.
08-19-2018 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1690
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-19-2018 09:11 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  I think the PAC is in a weak position right now. The PAC Networks have no national coverage nor produce significant revenue. Some schools, like Cal, are having a very hard time to just get fans to show up to football games. There is probably further changes or further regression in the PAC-12 during this next round of realignment.

They are in the weakest position. And if they can't get a major backer I don't think they will be in position to choose to offer anyone that they have the slightest chance of landing. Rather they will have to decide if the leftovers are worth it for CTZ exposure.

I could see them lose a school if the Big 10 pushed hard for Colorado. But the concept of Colorado leaving is highly improbable, just not impossible.

I'm not convinced that Oklahoma or Texas want to leave the Big 12, at least not until they see what the ACCN produces. If the ACCN pays out as expected I think they leave. If it falls significantly short of expectations I think they resign their GOR for 10 years and everyone waits to see if anyone bails from the ACC in 2035-7.

If the ACCN turns 7 to 8 million for the ACC by year 2 or 3 (2021-2) then Texas and Oklahoma have some decisions to make. If the ACCN produces less than that by year 3 then they may choose to wait it out.

While I think the projections of 15 million a year per school payout for the ACCN are too high, I like their chances to hit in the 7 - 10 million range. And if that happen the ACC will start feeling a lot more secure. Anything more for them and they'll be fine.

What Texas and Oklahoma can't afford to have happen is for the Big 12 to slip to 4th in the overall conference standings. The Big 12 is currently on a per school average about 15 million ahead of the ACC in Gross Total Revenue and about 7 million ahead in TV revenue (on average). So if the ACC makes up that 7 million the Big 12 knows they'll never get an expansion candidate out of the ACC. With the Big 10 and SEC closed to them and the PAC schools other than Colorado being so remote, then Texas and Oklahoma will start thinking about their futures elsewhere.
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2018 01:29 PM by JRsec.)
08-19-2018 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #1691
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave
08-19-2018 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1692
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The tag along is an option if OU is being courted by both the Big Ten and the SEC. I would not expect further additions unless Texas decides rebuilding the Big 12 and independence are unsustainable .
08-19-2018 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1693
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-19-2018 05:21 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The tag along is an option if OU is being courted by both the Big Ten and the SEC. I would not expect further additions unless Texas decides rebuilding the Big 12 and independence are unsustainable .

Without A&M, Arkansas, and Oklahoma the situation for Texas will not be sustainable. They'll move.
08-19-2018 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1694
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The playoff question is an interesting one. How often is each league making an appearance?

SEC = 4/4
ACC = 4/4
Big Ten = 3/4
PAC 12 = 2/4
Big 12 = 2/4

Technically, you could say the SEC made 5 trips in 4 years, but you get the point.

For the Big Ten, their last two entrants were absolutely embarrassed and I believe that's part of the reason OSU got left out last year. That league may have more trouble than people expect when it comes to CFP appearances. They've got plenty of money though so it's not an urgent matter.

Interestingly enough, the PAC and Big 12 are competing for the league that's most likely to be left out in any given year.

We've got a few more years to see what this breakdown looks like. Right now, I don't think we have any solid trends with regard to how often a league like the Big 12 will get left out. One thing is for certain though, unless it's OU or UT, the odds of a Big 12 school getting in are slimmer unless they have a perfect record.

Which brings us back to the core problem that the Big 12 has, not enough market strength and too few bell cows. Those factors lend themselves to stronger conferences and that alone could drive OU and UT to abandon ship.
08-19-2018 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1695
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-19-2018 08:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The playoff question is an interesting one. How often is each league making an appearance?

SEC = 4/4
ACC = 4/4
Big Ten = 3/4
PAC 12 = 2/4
Big 12 = 2/4

Technically, you could say the SEC made 5 trips in 4 years, but you get the point.

For the Big Ten, their last two entrants were absolutely embarrassed and I believe that's part of the reason OSU got left out last year. That league may have more trouble than people expect when it comes to CFP appearances. They've got plenty of money though so it's not an urgent matter.

Interestingly enough, the PAC and Big 12 are competing for the league that's most likely to be left out in any given year.

We've got a few more years to see what this breakdown looks like. Right now, I don't think we have any solid trends with regard to how often a league like the Big 12 will get left out. One thing is for certain though, unless it's OU or UT, the odds of a Big 12 school getting in are slimmer unless they have a perfect record.

Which brings us back to the core problem that the Big 12 has, not enough market strength and too few bell cows. Those factors lend themselves to stronger conferences and that alone could drive OU and UT to abandon ship.

The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

in the West and an East that looks like this:

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

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2018 09:23 PM by JRsec.)
08-19-2018 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1696
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(07-31-2018 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2018 11:42 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:43 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.

The PAC window is within a year of the Big 10's. That's about as good as the Big 10 could hope for. And I agree that Colorado/Oklahoma would be a dynamic move by the Big 10 restoring two of Nebraska's historic rivals and at the same time landing a much better market and creating a bridge West should they ever need one.

UT-KU.............SEC
OU-Col............BIG
ND (ft)-WVU...ACC

ISU, KSU, oSu, TTU, CSU to the PAC?
PAC would not go for this because it is not academic elite enough. However, if the PAC's network and sponsorship values keep dropping comparatively, this could be a bold, but worthy, move.
Maybe if they were going to be bold the mix would be ISU, KSU, OSU?, TTU, TCU. TCU is adding a medical college and their main campus academic freedom is unrelated to the seminary.

To add to this per TCU's historical private affiliation, the Disciples of Christ, comparatively, are one of the more progressive Christian denominations.
Their teaching and research would have little interference by fundamentalists' activism.
08-20-2018 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1697
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-20-2018 01:03 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-31-2018 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2018 11:42 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2018 10:43 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Pardon me for not tailing on lengthy, multiple poster scripts. The scrolling is too extensive and delineating the dividing lines is a visual challenge. Perhaps that's just me.
---------------------------

Say the SEC nails down UT and KU before the BIG moves to expand. Assuming the BIG certainly wants Oklahoma. Also, assuming the BIG views staying "contiguous", by state, remains important for them. How does the BIG deal with both aims?

There are three states that would contiguously bridge Oklahoma to the BIG:. Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado (though bordering is slight). Taking Mizzou and KU off the table, that leave KSU, Colorado, and CSU as remaining options. It would be tough for the BIG to take KSU and turn down ISU, an AAU member. That leaves Colorado and CSU. CSU is trying for AAU, but so are a couple of dozen others. CSU may be too deficient in facilities, fan support, and some other measures to appeal to the BIG.

That leaves Colorado. An Oklahoma--Colorado addition to the BIG would be a fantastic move. Nebraska and others would love it. If the BIG could lure Colorado away from the PAC12, that would be a nice coup with OU.

Don't recall the timing of the PAC GoR window when Colorado could shift.

OU-UC to BIG, UT-KU to SEC; superb moves for both conferences. Make the deal.

The PAC window is within a year of the Big 10's. That's about as good as the Big 10 could hope for. And I agree that Colorado/Oklahoma would be a dynamic move by the Big 10 restoring two of Nebraska's historic rivals and at the same time landing a much better market and creating a bridge West should they ever need one.

UT-KU.............SEC
OU-Col............BIG
ND (ft)-WVU...ACC

ISU, KSU, oSu, TTU, CSU to the PAC?
PAC would not go for this because it is not academic elite enough. However, if the PAC's network and sponsorship values keep dropping comparatively, this could be a bold, but worthy, move.
Maybe if they were going to be bold the mix would be ISU, KSU, OSU?, TTU, TCU. TCU is adding a medical college and their main campus academic freedom is unrelated to the seminary.

To add to this per TCU's historical private affiliation, the Disciples of Christ, comparatively, are one of the more progressive Christian denominations.
Their teaching and research would have little interference by fundamentalists' activism.

True, and what's more is that they totally separated the governance of the seminary from the rest of the school. By doing so Church polity doesn't interfere with academic freedom.
08-20-2018 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Offline
Banned

Posts: 844
Joined: Jul 2018
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #1698
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-19-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 08:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The playoff question is an interesting one. How often is each league making an appearance?

SEC = 4/4
ACC = 4/4
Big Ten = 3/4
PAC 12 = 2/4
Big 12 = 2/4

Technically, you could say the SEC made 5 trips in 4 years, but you get the point.

For the Big Ten, their last two entrants were absolutely embarrassed and I believe that's part of the reason OSU got left out last year. That league may have more trouble than people expect when it comes to CFP appearances. They've got plenty of money though so it's not an urgent matter.

Interestingly enough, the PAC and Big 12 are competing for the league that's most likely to be left out in any given year.

We've got a few more years to see what this breakdown looks like. Right now, I don't think we have any solid trends with regard to how often a league like the Big 12 will get left out. One thing is for certain though, unless it's OU or UT, the odds of a Big 12 school getting in are slimmer unless they have a perfect record.

Which brings us back to the core problem that the Big 12 has, not enough market strength and too few bell cows. Those factors lend themselves to stronger conferences and that alone could drive OU and UT to abandon ship.

The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

in the West and an East that looks like this:

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

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.

I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2018 02:43 PM by P5PACSEC.)
08-20-2018 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1699
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-20-2018 02:42 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 08:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The playoff question is an interesting one. How often is each league making an appearance?

SEC = 4/4
ACC = 4/4
Big Ten = 3/4
PAC 12 = 2/4
Big 12 = 2/4

Technically, you could say the SEC made 5 trips in 4 years, but you get the point.

For the Big Ten, their last two entrants were absolutely embarrassed and I believe that's part of the reason OSU got left out last year. That league may have more trouble than people expect when it comes to CFP appearances. They've got plenty of money though so it's not an urgent matter.

Interestingly enough, the PAC and Big 12 are competing for the league that's most likely to be left out in any given year.

We've got a few more years to see what this breakdown looks like. Right now, I don't think we have any solid trends with regard to how often a league like the Big 12 will get left out. One thing is for certain though, unless it's OU or UT, the odds of a Big 12 school getting in are slimmer unless they have a perfect record.

Which brings us back to the core problem that the Big 12 has, not enough market strength and too few bell cows. Those factors lend themselves to stronger conferences and that alone could drive OU and UT to abandon ship.

The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

in the West and an East that looks like this:

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

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.

I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.

For lack of a better term is it fair to say that Texas Tech is the #3 state school in Texas?

My point all along has been that if the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the move is profitable in that the combination still adds value, just not as much value as Oklahoma by themselves. Along the same lines the additions of Texas and Texas Tech add value to the SEC. Just not as much as Texas by themselves.

If the choice was between the two pairs then Clearly Texas and Texas Tech add more value than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

In fact the order when studied is the following pairs add value in descending order:
1. Texas and Oklahoma (and by a very wide margin)
2. Texas and Kansas
3. Texas and Texas Tech
4. Texas and Iowa State
5. Texas and Kansas State
6. Oklahoma and Kansas
7. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

There is no whizzing contest here. It boils down to revenue value.

There is no arguing that if the SEC is only expanding to 16 the best possible pairing is Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Kansas is possible but I don't consider it as likely to transpire because of in state politics in Texas and Oklahoma.

Should the SEC move to 16 in the next round of musical chairs I expect that ESPN will push for Texas to move to either the SEC or ACC and since they hold the LHN until 2031 they will wield some influence.

If that's the case then it is also likely that Texas will push for the inclusion of Tech. There are some serious advantages in that pairing to ESPN for market control, and to the SEC for market leverage. It is much better to have 3 solid state schools in a rabid market of 28 million than it is to have 2 state schools in a market of 4 million.

But strictly from a SEC standpoint taking only Texas and Oklahoma adds 2.3 billion in economic impact to the conference as opposed to 1.5 billion with the pairing of Tech with Texas.

Realignment has to line up 3 moving targets: 1. The network's interest, 2. The conference's interest, and 3. The school's interest.

The likelihood of lining up #3 with #1 is probably the toughest. The SEC has one clear objective to the West. We want to have the largest share of the DFW market. Either Texas or Oklahoma gives us that. We want the most possible revenue we can get out of the additions. That means we would prefer a pairing that included Texas because they are more valuable than Oklahoma. Ideally we would take them both. If state politics get involved and Texas decides that the advantages the SEC offers them in being friendly to their minor sports, offering their fans less travel, offering their fans a more appealing schedule, and restoring their old rivals is what they decide to pursue and their politics necessitate Texas Tech it's obviously going to get done. Why? ESPN would control the 3 top state schools in Texas. The SEC would be making more revenue and would have the top ad rate in a state of 28 million and it plays into our Spanish language broadcasts in the 22 Mexican cities we already broadcast in. And in as much as it permits Texas to play the other two state schools annually, reunites them with Arkansas and opens up Louisiana to them for recruiting I think it would be a go for them as well.

The problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is in doubling down in a small state. That's not as appealing to ESPN and is not preferable for the SEC, although we would do it if that was the only way to land OU and get the share of DFW we want should Texas show no interest.

Truthfully there wouldn't be much interest in Kansas as a market where the Network would be concerned. ESPN might go for that if OU and KU were the pair headed to the SEC, but I would think given the way they have organized their product that they would prefer to take two in Texas to add to A&M to dominate that market. It's much more lucrative in that they would get to triple dip for at least 9 weeks out of the season in that 28 million market.

I wondered before if Texas / Tech / OU / OSU wanted in as a foursome if the deal would be done? Again it's a no brainer for revenue. The issue will be does anyone want to deal with the issues surrounding a 18 member conference when the Big 10 and PAC would be pissed about it and would want to be obstructionists for rules changes permitting 3 divisions.

So for those reasons I think 16 is more likely. If so and Texas wants in there's a great chance Tech gets in too. I don't see UT sticking their necks out for Baylor at all. T.C.U. is a bit of a question mark considering their current A.D. But politics usually trump those kind of concerns so with any legislative push back Tech would probably be #16.

That's how I see it. I think Kansas would prefer the Big 10 and I think Texas might prefer that OU go with them. That really leaves Texas recruits 3 choices for playing in a conference that annually sends more players to the NFL than any other conference and it gives the Horns a leg up on the snowbound Sooners.

Quietly demoting T.C.U. and Baylor would also help the 3 state schools competitively.


And for the record in 1990 the SEC was looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, and Clemson. Miami was mentioned but not part of the initial plan. I don't care what the Washington Post says (besides it was a speculative article). There was a 6th candidate however and that was one that was only talking through Texas and was only interested in joining if Texas did (Oklahoma).

Miami did have talks with us, but that was after Texas backed out and therefore OU, and after Clemson did as well then South Carolina applied. I don't remember now if we talked with Miami before or after F.S.U.'s decline.

There are a lot of political reasons that were complicating much of that period. But yeah, we were looking at moving to 16 in one swoop in 1990 and not everyone involved wanted to be mentioned (OU & Clemson). South Carolina and Miami were backups.

If you want a fun read then try to find Jackie Sherrill (then at Miss State) talking about our defensive plan to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. That one mentions Miami as part of the 20 along with several other schools.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2018 03:47 PM by JRsec.)
08-20-2018 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Offline
Banned

Posts: 844
Joined: Jul 2018
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #1700
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(08-20-2018 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-20-2018 02:42 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 08:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If the money isn't as good and the terrible competition continues to result in either missing the playoffs or getting blown out in round one then they have no reason to stay.

Where they go is highly debatable as is who if anyone will get to tag along but they will leave

The playoff question is an interesting one. How often is each league making an appearance?

SEC = 4/4
ACC = 4/4
Big Ten = 3/4
PAC 12 = 2/4
Big 12 = 2/4

Technically, you could say the SEC made 5 trips in 4 years, but you get the point.

For the Big Ten, their last two entrants were absolutely embarrassed and I believe that's part of the reason OSU got left out last year. That league may have more trouble than people expect when it comes to CFP appearances. They've got plenty of money though so it's not an urgent matter.

Interestingly enough, the PAC and Big 12 are competing for the league that's most likely to be left out in any given year.

We've got a few more years to see what this breakdown looks like. Right now, I don't think we have any solid trends with regard to how often a league like the Big 12 will get left out. One thing is for certain though, unless it's OU or UT, the odds of a Big 12 school getting in are slimmer unless they have a perfect record.

Which brings us back to the core problem that the Big 12 has, not enough market strength and too few bell cows. Those factors lend themselves to stronger conferences and that alone could drive OU and UT to abandon ship.

The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

in the West and an East that looks like this:

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

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.

I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.

For lack of a better term is it fair to say that Texas Tech is the #3 state school in Texas?

My point all along has been that if the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the move is profitable in that the combination still adds value, just not as much value as Oklahoma by themselves. Along the same lines the additions of Texas and Texas Tech add value to the SEC. Just not as much as Texas by themselves.

If the choice was between the two pairs then Clearly Texas and Texas Tech add more value than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

In fact the order when studied is the following pairs add value in descending order:
1. Texas and Oklahoma (and by a very wide margin)
2. Texas and Kansas
3. Texas and Texas Tech
4. Texas and Iowa State
5. Texas and Kansas State
6. Oklahoma and Kansas
7. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

There is no whizzing contest here. It boils down to revenue value.

There is no arguing that if the SEC is only expanding to 16 the best possible pairing is Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Kansas is possible but I don't consider it as likely to transpire because of in state politics in Texas and Oklahoma.

Should the SEC move to 16 in the next round of musical chairs I expect that ESPN will push for Texas to move to either the SEC or ACC and since they hold the LHN until 2031 they will wield some influence.

If that's the case then it is also likely that Texas will push for the inclusion of Tech. There are some serious advantages in that pairing to ESPN for market control, and to the SEC for market leverage. It is much better to have 3 solid state schools in a rabid market of 28 million than it is to have 2 state schools in a market of 4 million.

But strictly from a SEC standpoint taking only Texas and Oklahoma adds 2.3 billion in economic impact to the conference as opposed to 1.5 billion with the pairing of Tech with Texas.

Realignment has to line up 3 moving targets: 1. The network's interest, 2. The conference's interest, and 3. The school's interest.

The likelihood of lining up #3 with #1 is probably the toughest. The SEC has one clear objective to the West. We want to have the largest share of the DFW market. Either Texas or Oklahoma gives us that. We want the most possible revenue we can get out of the additions. That means we would prefer a pairing that included Texas because they are more valuable than Oklahoma. Ideally we would take them both. If state politics get involved and Texas decides that the advantages the SEC offers them in being friendly to their minor sports, offering their fans less travel, offering their fans a more appealing schedule, and restoring their old rivals is what they decide to pursue and their politics necessitate Texas Tech it's obviously going to get done. Why? ESPN would control the 3 top state schools in Texas. The SEC would be making more revenue and would have the top ad rate in a state of 28 million and it plays into our Spanish language broadcasts in the 22 Mexican cities we already broadcast in. And in as much as it permits Texas to play the other two state schools annually, reunites them with Arkansas and opens up Louisiana to them for recruiting I think it would be a go for them as well.

The problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is in doubling down in a small state. That's not as appealing to ESPN and is not preferable for the SEC, although we would do it if that was the only way to land OU and get the share of DFW we want should Texas show no interest.

Truthfully there wouldn't be much interest in Kansas as a market where the Network would be concerned. ESPN might go for that if OU and KU were the pair headed to the SEC, but I would think given the way they have organized their product that they would prefer to take two in Texas to add to A&M to dominate that market. It's much more lucrative in that they would get to triple dip for at least 9 weeks out of the season in that 28 million market.

I wondered before if Texas / Tech / OU / OSU wanted in as a foursome if the deal would be done? Again it's a no brainer for revenue. The issue will be does anyone want to deal with the issues surrounding a 18 member conference when the Big 10 and PAC would be pissed about it and would want to be obstructionists for rules changes permitting 3 divisions.

So for those reasons I think 16 is more likely. If so and Texas wants in there's a great chance Tech gets in too. I don't see UT sticking their necks out for Baylor at all. T.C.U. is a bit of a question mark considering their current A.D. But politics usually trump those kind of concerns so with any legislative push back Tech would probably be #16.

That's how I see it. I think Kansas would prefer the Big 10 and I think Texas might prefer that OU go with them. That really leaves Texas recruits 3 choices for playing in a conference that annually sends more players to the NFL than any other conference and it gives the Horns a leg up on the snowbound Sooners.

Quietly demoting T.C.U. and Baylor would also help the 3 state schools competitively.


And for the record in 1990 the SEC was looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, and Clemson. Miami was mentioned but not part of the initial plan. I don't care what the Washington Post says (besides it was a speculative article). There was a 6th candidate however and that was one that was only talking through Texas and was only interested in joining if Texas did (Oklahoma).

Miami did have talks with us, but that was after Texas backed out and therefore OU, and after Clemson did as well then South Carolina applied. I don't remember now if we talked with Miami before or after F.S.U.'s decline.

There are a lot of political reasons that were complicating much of that period. But yeah, we were looking at moving to 16 in one swoop in 1990 and not everyone involved wanted to be mentioned (OU & Clemson). South Carolina and Miami were backups.

If you want a fun read then try to find Jackie Sherrill (then at Miss State) talking about our defensive plan to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. That one mentions Miami as part of the 20 along with several other schools.

I'm OK with Tech being the #3 school in Texas as long as Miss St accepts being the #2 school in the state of Miss and Auburn being the #2 school in the state of Alabama. I also realize those #2's are long time fixtures in the SEC. All Universities start somewhere and some were handed a silver spoon by politics.

I also realize UT and OU bring more value but OU wants the BIG 10 conference(for reasons I have no clue about). Adding Tech and UT solidifies the state of Texas as an SEC state with viewers from El Paso to Orange and Amarillo to Brownsville.

If the SEC goes to 18, the PAC can add whoever they want along with the Big 10.
08-20-2018 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.