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: 16,473
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
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
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 229
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Dogs, Roosters
Location:
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: 16,473
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
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: 16,473
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
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
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 44
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation: 3
I Root For: P5
Location:
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
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 229
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Dogs, Roosters
Location:
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: 16,473
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
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
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.