(12-24-2019 02:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe that the ACC will remain bound together until 2037, but I wouldn't rule out any play that might be made to acquire Texas fully for them and which would offer a lure for Notre Dame to ignore the Big 10 or perhaps more importantly to get the Big 10 to ignore the ACC.

That's why I'm wondering if in the hands of the ACC whether some kind of release of a couple of ACC schools to finish out the SEC might not be considered to make room for what could lure Texas which is namely homes for 3 other Texas schools that they can keep on the home schedule. Oklahoma and Kansas would head to the Big 10 which with those two would price themselves out of the realignment game and the SEC might get the footprint it wants if the two schools are Virginia Tech and N.C. State, or the content that adds some value in terms of Clemson and Florida State.

Knowing what I know about the ACC, if they have to "politely" ask two to leave in order to save themselves they'd most likely ask the two most likely to be thorns on the side of the Carolina core and UVa. This is not theoretical. The last two that left have fans that complain about pro-Carolina/Duke bias (Maryland and the other Carolina). Guess which two current fans bases continue to have complaints about lack of football acumen and a pro-basketball bias? (Clue: not the Hokies because they love being close to the UNC/Duke/UVa group and they also depend on recruiting the region they're in)

Would the ACC want more money? Absolutely. But, above all else, they don't want any more programs that rock the boat. All the current ACC, minus ND and two more, are just happy to be there and don't want to go anywhere else. TCU, Baylor and even Tech would join the "happy to be there" group, should the Texas 4 be brokered in.

(12-24-2019 06:37 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(12-24-2019 02:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I believe that the ACC will remain bound together until 2037, but I wouldn't rule out any play that might be made to acquire Texas fully for them and which would offer a lure for Notre Dame to ignore the Big 10 or perhaps more importantly to get the Big 10 to ignore the ACC.

That's why I'm wondering if in the hands of the ACC whether some kind of release of a couple of ACC schools to finish out the SEC might not be considered to make room for what could lure Texas which is namely homes for 3 other Texas schools that they can keep on the home schedule. Oklahoma and Kansas would head to the Big 10 which with those two would price themselves out of the realignment game and the SEC might get the footprint it wants if the two schools are Virginia Tech and N.C. State, or the content that adds some value in terms of Clemson and Florida State.

Knowing what I know about the ACC, if they have to "politely" ask two to leave in order to save themselves they'd most likely ask the two most likely to be thorns on the side of the Carolina core and UVa. This is not theoretical. The last two that left have fans that complain about pro-Carolina/Duke bias (Maryland and the other Carolina). Guess which two current fans bases continue to have complaints about lack of football acumen and a pro-basketball bias? (Clue: not the Hokies because they love being close to the UNC/Duke/UVa group and they also depend on recruiting the region they're in)

Would the ACC want more money? Absolutely. But, above all else, they don't want any more programs that rock the boat. All the current ACC, minus ND and two more, are just happy to be there and don't want to go anywhere else. TCU, Baylor and even Tech would join the "happy to be there" group, should the Texas 4 be brokered in.

Yep, Clemson and Florida State are really two SEC schools stuck in the ACC and would be natural fits in the SEC. They have been my pick to finish our conference realignment, although I'd be perfectly fine with Oklahoma and Kansas.

But, if we landed both OU and UT we might bust 70 million per school in payouts by 2025.

At this stage of the game, I think the only thing ESPN could do to please the leaders of the Big Ten would be to help them get Notre Dame. Outside of that, the likelihood of the Big Ten giving place to FOX or maybe even CBS in the next round seems pretty likely to me.

They won't abandon ESPN as a partner, but the Big Ten has top billing with FOX right now. They'll have to share whatever attention they get from ESPN with the SEC and the ACC to a lesser degree. Strategically, that conference needs Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think that's going to happen because ESPN needs those properties as well.

To a lesser degree, ESPN even needs Kansas because it's reliable content during a portion of the year when sports fans are tuning elsewhere for the most part. I don't think ESPN can afford to let both Oklahoma and Kansas get away.

ESPN dug their heels in on Texas because that's the most valuable property out there. They'll continue to fight for Texas and to some degree that then depends on what Texas wants.

Does Texas want partners? Probably

Can ESPN supplement Texas' income through the LHN? Probably not as the age of the conference network is closing. In the not too distant future, leagues won't be able to capitalize on Tier 3 rights like they did at the outset. That will greatly reduce the capacity of ESPN to string Texas along with LHN money. The LHN itself has still never been as successful as other ventures. It will take a lot more work going forward to keep it viable at a certain price point as opposed to folding Texas into another conference's network.

I wouldn't be shocked if ESPN was interested in shipping Texas off to the ACC as that product could use the long term viability boost. I'm having a hard time making financial sense of it though. They'd have to find some way to pay the ACC on par with what Texas commands and that's a lot of money.

Even if they found a way to give Texas a full payment of ACC money and supplement with LHN money or from some other source then I think it would be very difficult to get close to $70 million.

If ESPN wants the ACC to survive the long term, and I think they probably do, then they'll probably have to find some way to conglomerate the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 into two conference that are codependent upon one another.

(12-25-2019 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this stage of the game, I think the only thing ESPN could do to please the leaders of the Big Ten would be to help them get Notre Dame. Outside of that, the likelihood of the Big Ten giving place to FOX or maybe even CBS in the next round seems pretty likely to me.

They won't abandon ESPN as a partner, but the Big Ten has top billing with FOX right now. They'll have to share whatever attention they get from ESPN with the SEC and the ACC to a lesser degree. Strategically, that conference needs Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think that's going to happen because ESPN needs those properties as well.

To a lesser degree, ESPN even needs Kansas because it's reliable content during a portion of the year when sports fans are tuning elsewhere for the most part. I don't think ESPN can afford to let both Oklahoma and Kansas get away.

ESPN dug their heels in on Texas because that's the most valuable property out there. They'll continue to fight for Texas and to some degree that then depends on what Texas wants.

Does Texas want partners? Probably

Can ESPN supplement Texas' income through the LHN? Probably not as the age of the conference network is closing. In the not too distant future, leagues won't be able to capitalize on Tier 3 rights like they did at the outset. That will greatly reduce the capacity of ESPN to string Texas along with LHN money. The LHN itself has still never been as successful as other ventures. It will take a lot more work going forward to keep it viable at a certain price point as opposed to folding Texas into another conference's network.

I wouldn't be shocked if ESPN was interested in shipping Texas off to the ACC as that product could use the long term viability boost. I'm having a hard time making financial sense of it though. They'd have to find some way to pay the ACC on par with what Texas commands and that's a lot of money.

Even if they found a way to give Texas a full payment of ACC money and supplement with LHN money or from some other source then I think it would be very difficult to get close to $70 million.

If ESPN wants the ACC to survive the long term, and I think they probably do, then they'll probably have to find some way to conglomerate the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 into two conference that are codependent upon one another.

I've said many times that Florida State and Clemson would satisfy me. The problem is at the new payouts I don't think they add value. Maybe they break even, but they don't add value.

We can speculate all we wish about Texas to the ACC but I think that ship sailed with Deloss Dodds and the epic fail among Tobacco Road.

If Texas wants to protect its business model then I think they will find an excuse to come to the SEC, hopefully with Oklahoma, but if not it's likely they'll still be pushing hard for TTU. We might be better off at that point to consider Oklahoma and Kansas instead. But there is no way I see the SEC turning down Texas and Oklahoma if we can land them.

That takes our WSJ valuation as a conference to 9.7 billion almost doubling that of the Big 10. That drives our content value through the roof. And that reunites Texas with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and preserves Oklahoma all likely as divisional games unless we have a new format in which those would be annual games. And it gives them access to L.S.U. and Alabama and Auburn and Florida (which helps their recruiting) and it helps them to preserve their business model that is the best in the business.

So it comes down to this. ESPN wants Texas. They might prefer to have them in the ACC, but they'll take them in the SEC now that we are 100% in. They might like to have Kansas, but if Oklahoma is willing to move with the Horns that will mean more money for ESPN, ABC, and the SEC.

So I'll let, and even encourage, the whole board to speculate about what will happen and what the permutations of those possibilities might be. But there is only 1 conference that significantly increases the payouts to Texas and Oklahoma, keeps their games more regional, and matches up with the softball and baseball that both love, and the track & field and swimming and diving and tennis and golf and which offers women's soccer and doesn't play hockey. And we all know where that is.

I was reading Wilner, as I do when he has something new out, about a year ago and he quoted (and I've been looking for it) a West coast pundit who said when the SEC's new media deal was done that he thought that the SEC would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Well we're there and waiting on the Big 12 GOR to expire in 2025 because if they leave it will be at the end of 2024 so that 1 year's revenue is all the overhead they would have and that would be around 40 million which would be recouped in 2 years time.

I don't think this time around that it is complicated in any way. I think Texas and Oklahoma will either stick it out to keep "their" conference intact and hope once again that the destruction comes to the ACC and do so even though it costs them lots of revenue. Or, I believe Oklahoma will leave first for a much needed cash infusion and Texas will realize that without Oklahoma they have little credibility with the games they'll play in the remaining Big 12 and that they will opt to leave as well. And if the SEC snags Oklahoma then I think that is what Texas will choose as well. It makes cents and sense where their whole sports endeavor is concerned. All they'll need really, is a good excuse.

(12-25-2019 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this stage of the game, I think the only thing ESPN could do to please the leaders of the Big Ten would be to help them get Notre Dame. Outside of that, the likelihood of the Big Ten giving place to FOX or maybe even CBS in the next round seems pretty likely to me.

They won't abandon ESPN as a partner, but the Big Ten has top billing with FOX right now. They'll have to share whatever attention they get from ESPN with the SEC and the ACC to a lesser degree. Strategically, that conference needs Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think that's going to happen because ESPN needs those properties as well.

To a lesser degree, ESPN even needs Kansas because it's reliable content during a portion of the year when sports fans are tuning elsewhere for the most part. I don't think ESPN can afford to let both Oklahoma and Kansas get away.

ESPN dug their heels in on Texas because that's the most valuable property out there. They'll continue to fight for Texas and to some degree that then depends on what Texas wants.

Does Texas want partners? Probably

Can ESPN supplement Texas' income through the LHN? Probably not as the age of the conference network is closing. In the not too distant future, leagues won't be able to capitalize on Tier 3 rights like they did at the outset. That will greatly reduce the capacity of ESPN to string Texas along with LHN money. The LHN itself has still never been as successful as other ventures. It will take a lot more work going forward to keep it viable at a certain price point as opposed to folding Texas into another conference's network.

I wouldn't be shocked if ESPN was interested in shipping Texas off to the ACC as that product could use the long term viability boost. I'm having a hard time making financial sense of it though. They'd have to find some way to pay the ACC on par with what Texas commands and that's a lot of money.

Even if they found a way to give Texas a full payment of ACC money and supplement with LHN money or from some other source then I think it would be very difficult to get close to $70 million.

If ESPN wants the ACC to survive the long term, and I think they probably do, then they'll probably have to find some way to conglomerate the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 into two conference that are codependent upon one another.

I've said many times that Florida State and Clemson would satisfy me. The problem is at the new payouts I don't think they add value. Maybe they break even, but they don't add value.

We can speculate all we wish about Texas to the ACC but I think that ship sailed with Deloss Dodds and the epic fail among Tobacco Road.

If Texas wants to protect its business model then I think they will find an excuse to come to the SEC, hopefully with Oklahoma, but if not it's likely they'll still be pushing hard for TTU. We might be better off at that point to consider Oklahoma and Kansas instead. But there is no way I see the SEC turning down Texas and Oklahoma if we can land them.

That takes our WSJ valuation as a conference to 9.7 billion almost doubling that of the Big 10. That drives our content value through the roof. And that reunites Texas with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and preserves Oklahoma all likely as divisional games unless we have a new format in which those would be annual games. And it gives them access to L.S.U. and Alabama and Auburn and Florida (which helps their recruiting) and it helps them to preserve their business model that is the best in the business.

So it comes down to this. ESPN wants Texas. They might prefer to have them in the ACC, but they'll take them in the SEC now that we are 100% in. They might like to have Kansas, but if Oklahoma is willing to move with the Horns that will mean more money for ESPN, ABC, and the SEC.

So I'll let, and even encourage, the whole board to speculate about what will happen and what the permutations of those possibilities might be. But there is only 1 conference that significantly increases the payouts to Texas and Oklahoma, keeps their games more regional, and matches up with the softball and baseball that both love, and the track & field and swimming and diving and tennis and golf and which offers women's soccer and doesn't play hockey. And we all know where that is.

I was reading Wilner, as I do when he has something new out, about a year ago and he quoted (and I've been looking for it) a West coast pundit who said when the SEC's new media deal was done that he thought that the SEC would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Well we're there and waiting on the Big 12 GOR to expire in 2025 because if they leave it will be at the end of 2024 so that 1 year's revenue is all the overhead they would have and that would be around 40 million which would be recouped in 2 years time.

I don't think this time around that it is complicated in any way. I think Texas and Oklahoma will either stick it out to keep "their" conference intact and hope once again that the destruction comes to the ACC and do so even though it costs them lots of revenue. Or, I believe Oklahoma will leave first for a much needed cash infusion and Texas will realize that without Oklahoma they have little credibility with the games they'll play in the remaining Big 12 and that they will opt to leave as well. And if the SEC snags Oklahoma then I think that is what Texas will choose as well. It makes cents and sense where their whole sports endeavor is concerned. All they'll need really, is a good excuse.

It is cheaper for ESPN to increase the SEC payout a little and bring along Texas than to increase the ACC payout a lot and bring along Texas.

(12-26-2019 08:38 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this stage of the game, I think the only thing ESPN could do to please the leaders of the Big Ten would be to help them get Notre Dame. Outside of that, the likelihood of the Big Ten giving place to FOX or maybe even CBS in the next round seems pretty likely to me.

They won't abandon ESPN as a partner, but the Big Ten has top billing with FOX right now. They'll have to share whatever attention they get from ESPN with the SEC and the ACC to a lesser degree. Strategically, that conference needs Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think that's going to happen because ESPN needs those properties as well.

To a lesser degree, ESPN even needs Kansas because it's reliable content during a portion of the year when sports fans are tuning elsewhere for the most part. I don't think ESPN can afford to let both Oklahoma and Kansas get away.

ESPN dug their heels in on Texas because that's the most valuable property out there. They'll continue to fight for Texas and to some degree that then depends on what Texas wants.

Does Texas want partners? Probably

Can ESPN supplement Texas' income through the LHN? Probably not as the age of the conference network is closing. In the not too distant future, leagues won't be able to capitalize on Tier 3 rights like they did at the outset. That will greatly reduce the capacity of ESPN to string Texas along with LHN money. The LHN itself has still never been as successful as other ventures. It will take a lot more work going forward to keep it viable at a certain price point as opposed to folding Texas into another conference's network.

I wouldn't be shocked if ESPN was interested in shipping Texas off to the ACC as that product could use the long term viability boost. I'm having a hard time making financial sense of it though. They'd have to find some way to pay the ACC on par with what Texas commands and that's a lot of money.

Even if they found a way to give Texas a full payment of ACC money and supplement with LHN money or from some other source then I think it would be very difficult to get close to $70 million.

If ESPN wants the ACC to survive the long term, and I think they probably do, then they'll probably have to find some way to conglomerate the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 into two conference that are codependent upon one another.

I've said many times that Florida State and Clemson would satisfy me. The problem is at the new payouts I don't think they add value. Maybe they break even, but they don't add value.

We can speculate all we wish about Texas to the ACC but I think that ship sailed with Deloss Dodds and the epic fail among Tobacco Road.

If Texas wants to protect its business model then I think they will find an excuse to come to the SEC, hopefully with Oklahoma, but if not it's likely they'll still be pushing hard for TTU. We might be better off at that point to consider Oklahoma and Kansas instead. But there is no way I see the SEC turning down Texas and Oklahoma if we can land them.

That takes our WSJ valuation as a conference to 9.7 billion almost doubling that of the Big 10. That drives our content value through the roof. And that reunites Texas with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and preserves Oklahoma all likely as divisional games unless we have a new format in which those would be annual games. And it gives them access to L.S.U. and Alabama and Auburn and Florida (which helps their recruiting) and it helps them to preserve their business model that is the best in the business.

So it comes down to this. ESPN wants Texas. They might prefer to have them in the ACC, but they'll take them in the SEC now that we are 100% in. They might like to have Kansas, but if Oklahoma is willing to move with the Horns that will mean more money for ESPN, ABC, and the SEC.

So I'll let, and even encourage, the whole board to speculate about what will happen and what the permutations of those possibilities might be. But there is only 1 conference that significantly increases the payouts to Texas and Oklahoma, keeps their games more regional, and matches up with the softball and baseball that both love, and the track & field and swimming and diving and tennis and golf and which offers women's soccer and doesn't play hockey. And we all know where that is.

I was reading Wilner, as I do when he has something new out, about a year ago and he quoted (and I've been looking for it) a West coast pundit who said when the SEC's new media deal was done that he thought that the SEC would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Well we're there and waiting on the Big 12 GOR to expire in 2025 because if they leave it will be at the end of 2024 so that 1 year's revenue is all the overhead they would have and that would be around 40 million which would be recouped in 2 years time.

I don't think this time around that it is complicated in any way. I think Texas and Oklahoma will either stick it out to keep "their" conference intact and hope once again that the destruction comes to the ACC and do so even though it costs them lots of revenue. Or, I believe Oklahoma will leave first for a much needed cash infusion and Texas will realize that without Oklahoma they have little credibility with the games they'll play in the remaining Big 12 and that they will opt to leave as well. And if the SEC snags Oklahoma then I think that is what Texas will choose as well. It makes cents and sense where their whole sports endeavor is concerned. All they'll need really, is a good excuse.

It is cheaper for ESPN to increase the SEC payout a little and bring along Texas than to increase the ACC payout a lot and bring along Texas.

Absolutely! And the only way they could get Texas to the ACC would be to keep the LHN alive so they could pump ungodly money into it to keep Texas satisfied without having to raise the pay in the ACC.

There are two problems with that. One is it would damage relations in the ACC as Florida State, Clemson, and others got pissed at the favoritism expressed to Texas by ESPN. The other is that it still doesn't maximize the value for ESPN in terms of who Texas would play.

In the SEC there are multiple national audience games a year involving the Horns and a piece, or all of, the RRR.. In the ACC maybe they get UT/ND and UT/Clemson, and they get a piece of the RRR.

(12-26-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 08:38 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this stage of the game, I think the only thing ESPN could do to please the leaders of the Big Ten would be to help them get Notre Dame. Outside of that, the likelihood of the Big Ten giving place to FOX or maybe even CBS in the next round seems pretty likely to me.

They won't abandon ESPN as a partner, but the Big Ten has top billing with FOX right now. They'll have to share whatever attention they get from ESPN with the SEC and the ACC to a lesser degree. Strategically, that conference needs Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think that's going to happen because ESPN needs those properties as well.

To a lesser degree, ESPN even needs Kansas because it's reliable content during a portion of the year when sports fans are tuning elsewhere for the most part. I don't think ESPN can afford to let both Oklahoma and Kansas get away.

ESPN dug their heels in on Texas because that's the most valuable property out there. They'll continue to fight for Texas and to some degree that then depends on what Texas wants.

Does Texas want partners? Probably

Can ESPN supplement Texas' income through the LHN? Probably not as the age of the conference network is closing. In the not too distant future, leagues won't be able to capitalize on Tier 3 rights like they did at the outset. That will greatly reduce the capacity of ESPN to string Texas along with LHN money. The LHN itself has still never been as successful as other ventures. It will take a lot more work going forward to keep it viable at a certain price point as opposed to folding Texas into another conference's network.

I wouldn't be shocked if ESPN was interested in shipping Texas off to the ACC as that product could use the long term viability boost. I'm having a hard time making financial sense of it though. They'd have to find some way to pay the ACC on par with what Texas commands and that's a lot of money.

Even if they found a way to give Texas a full payment of ACC money and supplement with LHN money or from some other source then I think it would be very difficult to get close to $70 million.

If ESPN wants the ACC to survive the long term, and I think they probably do, then they'll probably have to find some way to conglomerate the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 into two conference that are codependent upon one another.

I've said many times that Florida State and Clemson would satisfy me. The problem is at the new payouts I don't think they add value. Maybe they break even, but they don't add value.

We can speculate all we wish about Texas to the ACC but I think that ship sailed with Deloss Dodds and the epic fail among Tobacco Road.

If Texas wants to protect its business model then I think they will find an excuse to come to the SEC, hopefully with Oklahoma, but if not it's likely they'll still be pushing hard for TTU. We might be better off at that point to consider Oklahoma and Kansas instead. But there is no way I see the SEC turning down Texas and Oklahoma if we can land them.

That takes our WSJ valuation as a conference to 9.7 billion almost doubling that of the Big 10. That drives our content value through the roof. And that reunites Texas with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and preserves Oklahoma all likely as divisional games unless we have a new format in which those would be annual games. And it gives them access to L.S.U. and Alabama and Auburn and Florida (which helps their recruiting) and it helps them to preserve their business model that is the best in the business.

So it comes down to this. ESPN wants Texas. They might prefer to have them in the ACC, but they'll take them in the SEC now that we are 100% in. They might like to have Kansas, but if Oklahoma is willing to move with the Horns that will mean more money for ESPN, ABC, and the SEC.

So I'll let, and even encourage, the whole board to speculate about what will happen and what the permutations of those possibilities might be. But there is only 1 conference that significantly increases the payouts to Texas and Oklahoma, keeps their games more regional, and matches up with the softball and baseball that both love, and the track & field and swimming and diving and tennis and golf and which offers women's soccer and doesn't play hockey. And we all know where that is.

I was reading Wilner, as I do when he has something new out, about a year ago and he quoted (and I've been looking for it) a West coast pundit who said when the SEC's new media deal was done that he thought that the SEC would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Well we're there and waiting on the Big 12 GOR to expire in 2025 because if they leave it will be at the end of 2024 so that 1 year's revenue is all the overhead they would have and that would be around 40 million which would be recouped in 2 years time.

I don't think this time around that it is complicated in any way. I think Texas and Oklahoma will either stick it out to keep "their" conference intact and hope once again that the destruction comes to the ACC and do so even though it costs them lots of revenue. Or, I believe Oklahoma will leave first for a much needed cash infusion and Texas will realize that without Oklahoma they have little credibility with the games they'll play in the remaining Big 12 and that they will opt to leave as well. And if the SEC snags Oklahoma then I think that is what Texas will choose as well. It makes cents and sense where their whole sports endeavor is concerned. All they'll need really, is a good excuse.

It is cheaper for ESPN to increase the SEC payout a little and bring along Texas than to increase the ACC payout a lot and bring along Texas.

Absolutely! And the only way they could get Texas to the ACC would be to keep the LHN alive so they could pump ungodly money into it to keep Texas satisfied without having to raise the pay in the ACC.

There are two problems with that. One is it would damage relations in the ACC as Florida State, Clemson, and others got pissed at the favoritism expressed to Texas by ESPN. The other is that it still doesn't maximize the value for ESPN in terms of who Texas would play.

In the SEC there are multiple national audience games a year involving the Horns and a piece, or all of, the RRR.. In the ACC maybe they get UT/ND and UT/Clemson, and they get a piece of the RRR.

Is it cheaper for ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 afloat? Is the Big 12 always salvageable as long as it has Texas (i.e, if OK left but Texas stayed and they stayed at 9 schools or backfilled)?

(12-26-2019 03:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 08:38 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 10:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  At this stage of the game, I think the only thing ESPN could do to please the leaders of the Big Ten would be to help them get Notre Dame. Outside of that, the likelihood of the Big Ten giving place to FOX or maybe even CBS in the next round seems pretty likely to me.

They won't abandon ESPN as a partner, but the Big Ten has top billing with FOX right now. They'll have to share whatever attention they get from ESPN with the SEC and the ACC to a lesser degree. Strategically, that conference needs Texas and Oklahoma, but I don't think that's going to happen because ESPN needs those properties as well.

To a lesser degree, ESPN even needs Kansas because it's reliable content during a portion of the year when sports fans are tuning elsewhere for the most part. I don't think ESPN can afford to let both Oklahoma and Kansas get away.

ESPN dug their heels in on Texas because that's the most valuable property out there. They'll continue to fight for Texas and to some degree that then depends on what Texas wants.

Does Texas want partners? Probably

Can ESPN supplement Texas' income through the LHN? Probably not as the age of the conference network is closing. In the not too distant future, leagues won't be able to capitalize on Tier 3 rights like they did at the outset. That will greatly reduce the capacity of ESPN to string Texas along with LHN money. The LHN itself has still never been as successful as other ventures. It will take a lot more work going forward to keep it viable at a certain price point as opposed to folding Texas into another conference's network.

I wouldn't be shocked if ESPN was interested in shipping Texas off to the ACC as that product could use the long term viability boost. I'm having a hard time making financial sense of it though. They'd have to find some way to pay the ACC on par with what Texas commands and that's a lot of money.

Even if they found a way to give Texas a full payment of ACC money and supplement with LHN money or from some other source then I think it would be very difficult to get close to $70 million.

If ESPN wants the ACC to survive the long term, and I think they probably do, then they'll probably have to find some way to conglomerate the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 into two conference that are codependent upon one another.

I've said many times that Florida State and Clemson would satisfy me. The problem is at the new payouts I don't think they add value. Maybe they break even, but they don't add value.

We can speculate all we wish about Texas to the ACC but I think that ship sailed with Deloss Dodds and the epic fail among Tobacco Road.

If Texas wants to protect its business model then I think they will find an excuse to come to the SEC, hopefully with Oklahoma, but if not it's likely they'll still be pushing hard for TTU. We might be better off at that point to consider Oklahoma and Kansas instead. But there is no way I see the SEC turning down Texas and Oklahoma if we can land them.

That takes our WSJ valuation as a conference to 9.7 billion almost doubling that of the Big 10. That drives our content value through the roof. And that reunites Texas with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and preserves Oklahoma all likely as divisional games unless we have a new format in which those would be annual games. And it gives them access to L.S.U. and Alabama and Auburn and Florida (which helps their recruiting) and it helps them to preserve their business model that is the best in the business.

So it comes down to this. ESPN wants Texas. They might prefer to have them in the ACC, but they'll take them in the SEC now that we are 100% in. They might like to have Kansas, but if Oklahoma is willing to move with the Horns that will mean more money for ESPN, ABC, and the SEC.

So I'll let, and even encourage, the whole board to speculate about what will happen and what the permutations of those possibilities might be. But there is only 1 conference that significantly increases the payouts to Texas and Oklahoma, keeps their games more regional, and matches up with the softball and baseball that both love, and the track & field and swimming and diving and tennis and golf and which offers women's soccer and doesn't play hockey. And we all know where that is.

I was reading Wilner, as I do when he has something new out, about a year ago and he quoted (and I've been looking for it) a West coast pundit who said when the SEC's new media deal was done that he thought that the SEC would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Well we're there and waiting on the Big 12 GOR to expire in 2025 because if they leave it will be at the end of 2024 so that 1 year's revenue is all the overhead they would have and that would be around 40 million which would be recouped in 2 years time.

I don't think this time around that it is complicated in any way. I think Texas and Oklahoma will either stick it out to keep "their" conference intact and hope once again that the destruction comes to the ACC and do so even though it costs them lots of revenue. Or, I believe Oklahoma will leave first for a much needed cash infusion and Texas will realize that without Oklahoma they have little credibility with the games they'll play in the remaining Big 12 and that they will opt to leave as well. And if the SEC snags Oklahoma then I think that is what Texas will choose as well. It makes cents and sense where their whole sports endeavor is concerned. All they'll need really, is a good excuse.

It is cheaper for ESPN to increase the SEC payout a little and bring along Texas than to increase the ACC payout a lot and bring along Texas.

Absolutely! And the only way they could get Texas to the ACC would be to keep the LHN alive so they could pump ungodly money into it to keep Texas satisfied without having to raise the pay in the ACC.

There are two problems with that. One is it would damage relations in the ACC as Florida State, Clemson, and others got pissed at the favoritism expressed to Texas by ESPN. The other is that it still doesn't maximize the value for ESPN in terms of who Texas would play.

In the SEC there are multiple national audience games a year involving the Horns and a piece, or all of, the RRR.. In the ACC maybe they get UT/ND and UT/Clemson, and they get a piece of the RRR.

Is it cheaper for ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 afloat? Is the Big 12 always salvageable as long as it has Texas (i.e, if OK left but Texas stayed and they stayed at 9 schools or backfilled)?

No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

(12-26-2019 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 08:38 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-25-2019 11:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I've said many times that Florida State and Clemson would satisfy me. The problem is at the new payouts I don't think they add value. Maybe they break even, but they don't add value.

We can speculate all we wish about Texas to the ACC but I think that ship sailed with Deloss Dodds and the epic fail among Tobacco Road.

If Texas wants to protect its business model then I think they will find an excuse to come to the SEC, hopefully with Oklahoma, but if not it's likely they'll still be pushing hard for TTU. We might be better off at that point to consider Oklahoma and Kansas instead. But there is no way I see the SEC turning down Texas and Oklahoma if we can land them.

That takes our WSJ valuation as a conference to 9.7 billion almost doubling that of the Big 10. That drives our content value through the roof. And that reunites Texas with A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, and preserves Oklahoma all likely as divisional games unless we have a new format in which those would be annual games. And it gives them access to L.S.U. and Alabama and Auburn and Florida (which helps their recruiting) and it helps them to preserve their business model that is the best in the business.

So it comes down to this. ESPN wants Texas. They might prefer to have them in the ACC, but they'll take them in the SEC now that we are 100% in. They might like to have Kansas, but if Oklahoma is willing to move with the Horns that will mean more money for ESPN, ABC, and the SEC.

So I'll let, and even encourage, the whole board to speculate about what will happen and what the permutations of those possibilities might be. But there is only 1 conference that significantly increases the payouts to Texas and Oklahoma, keeps their games more regional, and matches up with the softball and baseball that both love, and the track & field and swimming and diving and tennis and golf and which offers women's soccer and doesn't play hockey. And we all know where that is.

I was reading Wilner, as I do when he has something new out, about a year ago and he quoted (and I've been looking for it) a West coast pundit who said when the SEC's new media deal was done that he thought that the SEC would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Well we're there and waiting on the Big 12 GOR to expire in 2025 because if they leave it will be at the end of 2024 so that 1 year's revenue is all the overhead they would have and that would be around 40 million which would be recouped in 2 years time.

I don't think this time around that it is complicated in any way. I think Texas and Oklahoma will either stick it out to keep "their" conference intact and hope once again that the destruction comes to the ACC and do so even though it costs them lots of revenue. Or, I believe Oklahoma will leave first for a much needed cash infusion and Texas will realize that without Oklahoma they have little credibility with the games they'll play in the remaining Big 12 and that they will opt to leave as well. And if the SEC snags Oklahoma then I think that is what Texas will choose as well. It makes cents and sense where their whole sports endeavor is concerned. All they'll need really, is a good excuse.

It is cheaper for ESPN to increase the SEC payout a little and bring along Texas than to increase the ACC payout a lot and bring along Texas.

Absolutely! And the only way they could get Texas to the ACC would be to keep the LHN alive so they could pump ungodly money into it to keep Texas satisfied without having to raise the pay in the ACC.

There are two problems with that. One is it would damage relations in the ACC as Florida State, Clemson, and others got pissed at the favoritism expressed to Texas by ESPN. The other is that it still doesn't maximize the value for ESPN in terms of who Texas would play.

In the SEC there are multiple national audience games a year involving the Horns and a piece, or all of, the RRR.. In the ACC maybe they get UT/ND and UT/Clemson, and they get a piece of the RRR.

Is it cheaper for ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 afloat? Is the Big 12 always salvageable as long as it has Texas (i.e, if OK left but Texas stayed and they stayed at 9 schools or backfilled)?

No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

(12-26-2019 04:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 08:38 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  It is cheaper for ESPN to increase the SEC payout a little and bring along Texas than to increase the ACC payout a lot and bring along Texas.

Absolutely! And the only way they could get Texas to the ACC would be to keep the LHN alive so they could pump ungodly money into it to keep Texas satisfied without having to raise the pay in the ACC.

There are two problems with that. One is it would damage relations in the ACC as Florida State, Clemson, and others got pissed at the favoritism expressed to Texas by ESPN. The other is that it still doesn't maximize the value for ESPN in terms of who Texas would play.

In the SEC there are multiple national audience games a year involving the Horns and a piece, or all of, the RRR.. In the ACC maybe they get UT/ND and UT/Clemson, and they get a piece of the RRR.

Is it cheaper for ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 afloat? Is the Big 12 always salvageable as long as it has Texas (i.e, if OK left but Texas stayed and they stayed at 9 schools or backfilled)?

No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

So who are you suggesting come with them?

(12-26-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 01:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Absolutely! And the only way they could get Texas to the ACC would be to keep the LHN alive so they could pump ungodly money into it to keep Texas satisfied without having to raise the pay in the ACC.

There are two problems with that. One is it would damage relations in the ACC as Florida State, Clemson, and others got pissed at the favoritism expressed to Texas by ESPN. The other is that it still doesn't maximize the value for ESPN in terms of who Texas would play.

In the SEC there are multiple national audience games a year involving the Horns and a piece, or all of, the RRR.. In the ACC maybe they get UT/ND and UT/Clemson, and they get a piece of the RRR.

Is it cheaper for ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 afloat? Is the Big 12 always salvageable as long as it has Texas (i.e, if OK left but Texas stayed and they stayed at 9 schools or backfilled)?

No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

So who are you suggesting come with them?

I think Kansas should be in that group because ESPN would get a good return on that.

The others? I'm not sure. There's no one else that would make a terribly good investment from a content perspective.

I could see ESPN making some concessions if it kept UT and OU from going to FOX. In that scenario, the extra money might be well spent. Would they prefer their little brothers tag along? Would they prefer some penetration in outer markets like Iowa? Hard to say.

Of course, UT and OU might be just as happy to go by themselves as long as ESPN is paying a premium. If they're tempted by FOX though? It makes me wonder.

(12-26-2019 04:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Is it cheaper for ESPN to pay to keep the Big 12 afloat? Is the Big 12 always salvageable as long as it has Texas (i.e, if OK left but Texas stayed and they stayed at 9 schools or backfilled)?

No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

So who are you suggesting come with them?

I think Kansas should be in that group because ESPN would get a good return on that.

The others? I'm not sure. There's no one else that would make a terribly good investment from a content perspective.

I could see ESPN making some concessions if it kept UT and OU from going to FOX. In that scenario, the extra money might be well spent. Would they prefer their little brothers tag along? Would they prefer some penetration in outer markets like Iowa? Hard to say.

Of course, UT and OU might be just as happy to go by themselves as long as ESPN is paying a premium. If they're tempted by FOX though? It makes me wonder.

I'm not so sure that Oklahoma and Texas want tag-alongs. Their legislatures might. But both of them gain much more leverage over recruiting in Texas and Oklahoma by not elevating any other schools close by. Texas gets their main rivals back which pleases their ticket holders and Oklahoma keeps its ties to Texas and gains exposure in Florida and Georgia and Louisiana. That and the money should be enough. Besides the ACCN will need Texas exposure for money so why not add T.C.U. anyway. It's a travel hub so being an outlier is not an issue.

(12-26-2019 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

So who are you suggesting come with them?

I think Kansas should be in that group because ESPN would get a good return on that.

The others? I'm not sure. There's no one else that would make a terribly good investment from a content perspective.

I could see ESPN making some concessions if it kept UT and OU from going to FOX. In that scenario, the extra money might be well spent. Would they prefer their little brothers tag along? Would they prefer some penetration in outer markets like Iowa? Hard to say.

Of course, UT and OU might be just as happy to go by themselves as long as ESPN is paying a premium. If they're tempted by FOX though? It makes me wonder.

I'm not so sure that Oklahoma and Texas want tag-alongs. Their legislatures might. But both of them gain much more leverage over recruiting in Texas and Oklahoma by not elevating any other schools close by. Texas gets their main rivals back which pleases their ticket holders and Oklahoma keeps its ties to Texas and gains exposure in Florida and Georgia and Louisiana. That and the money should be enough. Besides the ACCN will need Texas exposure for money so why not add T.C.U. anyway. It's a travel hub so being an outlier is not an issue.

Obviously the networks look at different aspects than the bowl games do, but I think it is interesting that say the Camping World went after Iowa State. ISU fans travel well and seem to watch on TV too, so though it is a smaller state, it does provide some value. ISU isn't as big a brand as say Kansas, but if say the Big 10 got Texas and Kansas, I wonder if we would take OK and ISU, especially since ISU is an AAU. I would figure OK and TCU might be a solid add for the SEC at that point too. On the flip side if we got Texas and Kansas, Big 10 might "settle" for OK and ISU though ISU does duplicate for them.

(12-26-2019 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No. But it may be the better play by FOX in an effort to keep those brands out of ESPN's hands. If Oklahoma leaves IMO Texas has to. There would be no credible teams left on the conference schedule and UT is already suffering from disgruntled fans who are sick of only having 2 top games a year and one of those in Dallas.

Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

So who are you suggesting come with them?

I think Kansas should be in that group because ESPN would get a good return on that.

The others? I'm not sure. There's no one else that would make a terribly good investment from a content perspective.

I could see ESPN making some concessions if it kept UT and OU from going to FOX. In that scenario, the extra money might be well spent. Would they prefer their little brothers tag along? Would they prefer some penetration in outer markets like Iowa? Hard to say.

Of course, UT and OU might be just as happy to go by themselves as long as ESPN is paying a premium. If they're tempted by FOX though? It makes me wonder.

I'm not so sure that Oklahoma and Texas want tag-alongs. Their legislatures might. But both of them gain much more leverage over recruiting in Texas and Oklahoma by not elevating any other schools close by. Texas gets their main rivals back which pleases their ticket holders and Oklahoma keeps its ties to Texas and gains exposure in Florida and Georgia and Louisiana. That and the money should be enough. Besides the ACCN will need Texas exposure for money so why not add T.C.U. anyway. It's a travel hub so being an outlier is not an issue.

TCU and Houston make excellent fits for the ACC when you consider a few factors...the market exposure, the travel, the potential of the programs. That and the ACC needs a few more schools that can perform well at football.

To me, Kansas and Iowa State deserve something. They are quality programs and flagship schools. They just happen to be in small states, and for one reason or another, don't really fit in any of the surviving leagues. I think you could make a good argument that Kansas benefits the SEC although the money has now become an issue.

I would even throw Texas Tech into that group. They have a nice foundation even if they don't really fit anywhere outside the Big 12. I don't think the PAC will take them due to their academic snobbery. The TTU crowd might not like being in that league anyway.

To me, there should be a league that takes the flagships from the Mountain Time Zone and combines them with the decent products in the Central. I think it would be a decent league with a lot of commonality. By contrast, the West Coast schools are more or less on their own island and not just geographically. They fit with some of the Big Ten schools, but even then I wouldn't say it's all of those.

(12-26-2019 05:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which creates another interesting dynamic...

If ESPN protects additional schools from the current Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma have far less incentive to sign a deal with another network.

FOX giving big money to the current 10 schools would be less tempting if UT and OU can have what they want elsewhere.

The only real advantage that UT and OU can have in the Big 12 is an easier path to the playoff. Even that is mitigated though as a less competitive Big 12 will not get the benefit of the doubt when most resumes are compared. Oklahoma was a little lucky to get in this year. It could have been very different.

So who are you suggesting come with them?

I think Kansas should be in that group because ESPN would get a good return on that.

The others? I'm not sure. There's no one else that would make a terribly good investment from a content perspective.

I could see ESPN making some concessions if it kept UT and OU from going to FOX. In that scenario, the extra money might be well spent. Would they prefer their little brothers tag along? Would they prefer some penetration in outer markets like Iowa? Hard to say.

Of course, UT and OU might be just as happy to go by themselves as long as ESPN is paying a premium. If they're tempted by FOX though? It makes me wonder.

I'm not so sure that Oklahoma and Texas want tag-alongs. Their legislatures might. But both of them gain much more leverage over recruiting in Texas and Oklahoma by not elevating any other schools close by. Texas gets their main rivals back which pleases their ticket holders and Oklahoma keeps its ties to Texas and gains exposure in Florida and Georgia and Louisiana. That and the money should be enough. Besides the ACCN will need Texas exposure for money so why not add T.C.U. anyway. It's a travel hub so being an outlier is not an issue.

TCU and Houston make excellent fits for the ACC when you consider a few factors...the market exposure, the travel, the potential of the programs. That and the ACC needs a few more schools that can perform well at football.

To me, Kansas and Iowa State deserve something. They are quality programs and flagship schools. They just happen to be in small states, and for one reason or another, don't really fit in any of the surviving leagues. I think you could make a good argument that Kansas benefits the SEC although the money has now become an issue.

I would even throw Texas Tech into that group. They have a nice foundation even if they don't really fit anywhere outside the Big 12. I don't think the PAC will take them due to their academic snobbery. The TTU crowd might not like being in that league anyway.

To me, there should be a league that takes the flagships from the Mountain Time Zone and combines them with the decent products in the Central. I think it would be a decent league with a lot of commonality. By contrast, the West Coast schools are more or less on their own island and not just geographically. They fit with some of the Big Ten schools, but even then I wouldn't say it's all of those.

I feel like if ISU wasn't a duplicate, then each of the SEC and the Big 10 could get one of Texas and OK and one of ISU and Kansas and it be fairly solid for both conferences. But since it is a duplicate that means Kansas to the Big 10 and ISU to the SEC, which is a bit more of a stretch.

If the SEC grabbed ISU, Kansas, OK and Texas it would be really interesting, but Texas might need Tech to come along in a conference that size.

If they did grab those four plus Clemson/FSU/NC State/VT that leaves 2 spots in a 24 team conference.

(12-26-2019 09:33 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 05:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-26-2019 04:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So who are you suggesting come with them?

I think Kansas should be in that group because ESPN would get a good return on that.

The others? I'm not sure. There's no one else that would make a terribly good investment from a content perspective.

I could see ESPN making some concessions if it kept UT and OU from going to FOX. In that scenario, the extra money might be well spent. Would they prefer their little brothers tag along? Would they prefer some penetration in outer markets like Iowa? Hard to say.

Of course, UT and OU might be just as happy to go by themselves as long as ESPN is paying a premium. If they're tempted by FOX though? It makes me wonder.

I'm not so sure that Oklahoma and Texas want tag-alongs. Their legislatures might. But both of them gain much more leverage over recruiting in Texas and Oklahoma by not elevating any other schools close by. Texas gets their main rivals back which pleases their ticket holders and Oklahoma keeps its ties to Texas and gains exposure in Florida and Georgia and Louisiana. That and the money should be enough. Besides the ACCN will need Texas exposure for money so why not add T.C.U. anyway. It's a travel hub so being an outlier is not an issue.

TCU and Houston make excellent fits for the ACC when you consider a few factors...the market exposure, the travel, the potential of the programs. That and the ACC needs a few more schools that can perform well at football.

To me, Kansas and Iowa State deserve something. They are quality programs and flagship schools. They just happen to be in small states, and for one reason or another, don't really fit in any of the surviving leagues. I think you could make a good argument that Kansas benefits the SEC although the money has now become an issue.

I would even throw Texas Tech into that group. They have a nice foundation even if they don't really fit anywhere outside the Big 12. I don't think the PAC will take them due to their academic snobbery. The TTU crowd might not like being in that league anyway.

To me, there should be a league that takes the flagships from the Mountain Time Zone and combines them with the decent products in the Central. I think it would be a decent league with a lot of commonality. By contrast, the West Coast schools are more or less on their own island and not just geographically. They fit with some of the Big Ten schools, but even then I wouldn't say it's all of those.

I feel like if ISU wasn't a duplicate, then each of the SEC and the Big 10 could get one of Texas and OK and one of ISU and Kansas and it be fairly solid for both conferences. But since it is a duplicate that means Kansas to the Big 10 and ISU to the SEC, which is a bit more of a stretch.

If the SEC grabbed ISU, Kansas, OK and Texas it would be really interesting, but Texas might need Tech to come along in a conference that size.

If they did grab those four plus Clemson/FSU/NC State/VT that leaves 2 spots in a 24 team conference.

Here's the deal. If Texas or Oklahoma joins we will all see about a 2.5 million dollar boost in revenue. If both join it will be closer to 5 million more. So at that point if it happens in 2025 the SEC will jump from 66 million plus the annual escalator to nearly 72 million in per team revenue. Nobody else adds to the total value at that point (except N.D. which isn't joining the SEC). If one joins with a school like Kansas and the other goes elsewhere, it's over.

So if the SEC gets one of Texas and Oklahoma and a decent add like Kansas it's over. If the SEC gets Texas and Oklahoma it's over and nobody catches us in revenue.

Congrats on your big payday. Have not posted here for over a year as we are in kind of a dead period for realignment, but this is a major development. I have been saying for years OU is the key to cracking the B12 as they are the most displeased with the conference IMO. This contract pretty much guarantees they will be listening closely to any pitch the SEC gives them. Texas really wants to get their FB act in order, before they make a move; however, for a decade they have been treading water and they may not have the luxury of time to get their FB ship in order. Kansas is only a player if the conferences are looking at the basketball money next (which I think is the next logical step once the FB realignment pot of gold is depleted). The only hurdle is what the networks are willing to pony up for the B12 when the current contracts expire.

As currently constituted, I can't see the next B12 media contract being within the B1G and SEC financial ballparks, especially if Texas FB continues to wallow in mediocrity. I also can't see the PAC getting into that ballpark with it's currently anemic FB and BB combined with tepid fan interest. If the PAC and B12 are well behind the B1G and SEC, I think things will get a little bonkers around 2022/23 as those schools look to exit for better paying conferences (B1G/SEC) or reconstitute and merge to end up being closer to the B1G/SEC in value as PAC and B12 contracts expire. It is a lot easier to join an existing money making conference than to create your own though.

As we have discussed before, OU is more than willing to leave the B12, if you can guarantee they get at least 1 of OSU or Texas in conference for scheduling reasons. They may be willing to leave without one, if the financial incentive is large enough, but I think they will have to feel major financial pressure to do so. My guess is OU will put out feelers to the SEC about OU/OSU first as they have done that with every conference they have been rumored to have interest in. If they SEC consents, it gives OU a lot of leverage to twist Texas's arm to come to the SEC with or without little brother(s). One thing though, with Dodd's and Boren's giant egos being out of the picture, Texas and OU are working together better than they have in a long time. I think they will work together on possible solutions to the B12 falling behind. Which means I think they likely head to the same destination in the end if they decide the B12 is no longer viable. Whether they look to include other B12 schools in the move is up for debate, though if they can do so, I think they will try, if it won't financially hurt them too much and doing so would help mitigate political consequences.

Currently, I think the SEC just moved into the drivers seat for landing Texas and OU. You can take little brothers if necessary due to more lenient academic desires, are closer for travel, have 2 of Texas's traditional SWC rivals, have rich recruiting grounds, better sports (especially baseball) in the sports Texas and OU compete in, and will make the most. The BIG will make a hard pitch too, but in the end I think they are really hurt by the travel distance and unwillingness to take on TTU or OSU, despite being OU's desired academic peers and Texas's closest academic peers. Texas wants to control the State of Texas and not having any other conference games in the state (outside of OU at the Texas State Fair) would make this difficult in the B1G. If the B1G bends on TTU, then I think Texas, TTU, OU, and KU would be possible, but I think they would expand from the PAC before bending their academic standards that much. The B1G might also be able to swing Texas, without TTU, if they added the right mix of B12 and PAC schools, but it might require a very large expansion (4 or more schools) that the B1G has seemed to resist so far. But it would require a lot more work and/or bending on academics on the B1G's part than for the SEC IMO. Outside of academics and maybe, cutthroat recruiting issues, the SEC is a more desirable location for both Texas and OU IMO.

I think it is likely OU/UT will want to do this if they consider a move to the SEC: Texas, TTU, OU, and OSU. I think ESPN and SEC will push for KU instead of OSU in this scenario. OU/UT might counter with Texas, TTU, OU, OSU, KU, and 1 of WVU/TCU/ISU. That might not work financially though. I think it really comes down to how much OU needs OSU to come with. If they have Texas that is much less of a need. If the SEC somehow lands OU/Texas, with or without friends, then I look for a large expansion from or merger with the PAC for the B1G. Something like USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal/UW/Oregon or even up to a complete merger. The PAC/B1G have been partnered in the Rose Bowl forever and the B1G would not want to be seen as killing the PAC. The PAC is in really dire financial straits and something must give there. The ACC is then sooner or later (at end of GoR) gobbled up by the B1G and SEC and we end up with 2 mega conferences (like the AFC/NFC in the NFL). Likely of 48 to 56 schools.

If Texas and OU want to hold more power than they would wield in the B1G or SEC and to have an easier playoff path than in the SEC, then look for some kind of merger with the PAC with schools being left out. There have been rumors swirling about schools from the PAC talking to the B12, so it is not far fetched. Something built around OU, Texas, and USC FB and UCLA and Kansas BB, but dropping some lower valued schools. It would pay less than the B1G or SEC, but would bring more value than either the current PAC or B12. This would be best for the sport as we could make conference championship games de facto play-off games increasing their value greatly for the near future. However, the ACC would be in real trouble at this point as they would be far behind everyone else, likely leading to another round of realignment when their GoR ends with the most valuable ACC schools being gobbled up by the B1G and SEC. Likely leading to 3 power conferences of around 48-60 schools.

I guess in the end, I think the contracts the B1G and SEC will land before PAC/B12 contracts run out will likely lead to 2-3 mega conferences within a decade or two. I just don't know if it is financially viable for media companies to pay the B12/PAC/ACC like they will the B1G and SEC. Maybe only if someone like Amazon wants to take a loss to get into the market, kind of like FOX did with the NFC back in the 90s to legitimize their network.

As for KU, I think KU will be pushed by ESPN to the SEC if Texas/OU do not come as a pair only or as part of a larger expansion, as I think ESPN really likes KU for it's BB content and KU/UK would quickly rival Duke/UNC as basketball's best rivalry, it reignites the KU/MU rivalry, and it strengthens the SEC's weakest sport. KU and Texas were also floated as a pair a few years ago as a test balloon I believe. I also think KU was talking somewhat seriously with the B1G and/or SEC recently (my guess is the SEC, we have been talking on and off with the B1G for decades), as for years we had neglected our stadium and all of sudden they are putting a huge focus on it and have already built a new indoor practice facility as a first step. I think KU would only do that, if we got some pretty good assurances about getting into one of those conferences with the upgrades, considering how terrible our FB program as been the last decade and how mediocre historically. Without some assurances I think it would be foolish to spend several hundred million on a new stadium in a sport that has dipping interest outside of the southeast. Either that or KU is doing it to be more attractive and will drop the full stadium renovation for pig lipstick if they are left out.

One other thing, politically I doubt KU is the first school to abandon ship. OU and/or Texas will have to leave first. KSU will struggle to find a home if the B12 falls apart, so it has to be clear that the conference is dying before KU leaves and helps drive another nail in the B12's coffin or KU will get political blowback and KU/KSU share a BoR as well. So though we could move anytime we wanted supposedly, the political consequences would make it extremely difficult. However, once it is obvious the conference is dying we would have political cover to leave. If you see OU or Texas going to the SEC or B1G without the other or OSU/TTU then watch for KU to follow after a few weeks.

(12-27-2019 12:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Congrats on your big payday. Have not posted here for over a year as we are in kind of a dead period for realignment, but this is a major development. I have been saying for years OU is the key to cracking the B12 as they are the most displeased with the conference IMO. This contract pretty much guarantees they will be listening closely to any pitch the SEC gives them. Texas really wants to get their FB act in order, before they make a move; however, for a decade they have been treading water and they may not have the luxury of time to get their FB ship in order. Kansas is only a player if the conferences are looking at the basketball money next (which I think is the next logical step once the FB realignment pot of gold is depleted). The only hurdle is what the networks are willing to pony up for the B12 when the current contracts expire.

As currently constituted, I can't see the next B12 media contract being within the B1G and SEC financial ballparks, especially if Texas FB continues to wallow in mediocrity. I also can't see the PAC getting into that ballpark with it's currently anemic FB and BB combined with tepid fan interest. If the PAC and B12 are well behind the B1G and SEC, I think things will get a little bonkers around 2022/23 as those schools look to exit for better paying conferences (B1G/SEC) or reconstitute and merge to end up being closer to the B1G/SEC in value as PAC and B12 contracts expire. It is a lot easier to join an existing money making conference than to create your own though.

As we have discussed before, OU is more than willing to leave the B12, if you can guarantee they get at least 1 of OSU or Texas in conference for scheduling reasons. They may be willing to leave without one, if the financial incentive is large enough, but I think they will have to feel major financial pressure to do so. My guess is OU will put out feelers to the SEC about OU/OSU first as they have done that with every conference they have been rumored to have interest in. If they SEC consents, it gives OU a lot of leverage to twist Texas's arm to come to the SEC with or without little brother(s). One thing though, with Dodd's and Boren's giant egos being out of the picture, Texas and OU are working together better than they have in a long time. I think they will work together on possible solutions to the B12 falling behind. Which means I think they likely head to the same destination in the end if they decide the B12 is no longer viable. Whether they look to include other B12 schools in the move is up for debate, though if they can do so, I think they will try, if it won't financially hurt them too much and doing so would help mitigate political consequences.

Currently, I think the SEC just moved into the drivers seat for landing Texas and OU. You can take little brothers if necessary due to more lenient academic desires, are closer for travel, have 2 of Texas's traditional SWC rivals, have rich recruiting grounds, better sports (especially baseball) in the sports Texas and OU compete in, and will make the most. The BIG will make a hard pitch too, but in the end I think they are really hurt by the travel distance and unwillingness to take on TTU or OSU, despite being OU's desired academic peers and Texas's closest academic peers. Texas wants to control the State of Texas and not having any other conference games in the state (outside of OU at the Texas State Fair) would make this difficult in the B1G. If the B1G bends on TTU, then I think Texas, TTU, OU, and KU would be possible, but I think they would expand from the PAC before bending their academic standards that much. The B1G might also be able to swing Texas, without TTU, if they added the right mix of B12 and PAC schools, but it might require a very large expansion (4 or more schools) that the B1G has seemed to resist so far. But it would require a lot more work and/or bending on academics on the B1G's part than for the SEC IMO. Outside of academics and maybe, cutthroat recruiting issues, the SEC is a more desirable location for both Texas and OU IMO.

I think it is likely OU/UT will want to do this if they consider a move to the SEC: Texas, TTU, OU, and OSU. I think ESPN and SEC will push for KU instead of OSU in this scenario. OU/UT might counter with Texas, TTU, OU, OSU, KU, and 1 of WVU/TCU/ISU. That might not work financially though. I think it really comes down to how much OU needs OSU to come with. If they have Texas that is much less of a need. If the SEC somehow lands OU/Texas, with or without friends, then I look for a large expansion from or merger with the PAC for the B1G. Something like USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal/UW/Oregon or even up to a complete merger. The PAC/B1G have been partnered in the Rose Bowl forever and the B1G would not want to be seen as killing the PAC. The PAC is in really dire financial straits and something must give there. The ACC is then sooner or later (at end of GoR) gobbled up by the B1G and SEC and we end up with 2 mega conferences (like the AFC/NFC in the NFL). Likely of 48 to 56 schools.

If Texas and OU want to hold more power than they would wield in the B1G or SEC and to have an easier playoff path than in the SEC, then look for some kind of merger with the PAC with schools being left out. There have been rumors swirling about schools from the PAC talking to the B12, so it is not far fetched. Something built around OU, Texas, and USC FB and UCLA and Kansas BB, but dropping some lower valued schools. It would pay less than the B1G or SEC, but would bring more value than either the current PAC or B12. This would be best for the sport as we could make conference championship games de facto play-off games increasing their value greatly for the near future. However, the ACC would be in real trouble at this point as they would be far behind everyone else, likely leading to another round of realignment when their GoR ends with the most valuable ACC schools being gobbled up by the B1G and SEC. Likely leading to 3 power conferences of around 48-60 schools.

I guess in the end, I think the contracts the B1G and SEC will land before PAC/B12 contracts run out will likely lead to 2-3 mega conferences within a decade or two. I just don't know if it is financially viable for media companies to pay the B12/PAC/ACC like they will the B1G and SEC. Maybe only if someone like Amazon wants to take a loss to get into the market, kind of like FOX did with the NFC back in the 90s to legitimize their network.

As for KU, I think KU will be pushed by ESPN to the SEC if Texas/OU do not come as a pair only or as part of a larger expansion, as I think ESPN really likes KU for it's BB content and KU/UK would quickly rival Duke/UNC as basketball's best rivalry, it reignites the KU/MU rivalry, and it strengthens the SEC's weakest sport. KU and Texas were also floated as a pair a few years ago as a test balloon I believe. I also think KU was talking somewhat seriously with the B1G and/or SEC recently (my guess is the SEC, we have been talking on and off with the B1G for decades), as for years we had neglected our stadium and all of sudden they are putting a huge focus on it and have already built a new indoor practice facility as a first step. I think KU would only do that, if we got some pretty good assurances about getting into one of those conferences with the upgrades, considering how terrible our FB program as been the last decade and how mediocre historically. Without some assurances I think it would be foolish to spend several hundred million on a new stadium in a sport that has dipping interest outside of the southeast. Either that or KU is doing it to be more attractive and will drop the full stadium renovation for pig lipstick if they are left out.

One other thing, politically I doubt KU is the first school to abandon ship. OU and/or Texas will have to leave first. KSU will struggle to find a home if the B12 falls apart, so it has to be clear that the conference is dying before KU leaves and helps drive another nail in the B12's coffin or KU will get political blowback and KU/KSU share a BoR as well. So though we could move anytime we wanted supposedly, the political consequences would make it extremely difficult. However, once it is obvious the conference is dying we would have political cover to leave. If you see OU or Texas going to the SEC or B1G without the other or OSU/TTU then watch for KU to follow after a few weeks.

ESPN wants Texas and Kansas. FOX wants Oklahoma for the Big 10. To me the real question is what happens with Notre Dame? They aren't going to honor their ACC commitment beyond 2035 even though the ACC commitment is until 2037. They have 4 games they could enter into agreement with the Big 10 for those and still have 3 to play USC, Stanford, and Navy after playing their obligated 5 to the ACC.

If we move for division-less formats I think the SEC might be open to taking more than 2 if they were profitable. It would certainly put the Big 10 in position to take Oklahoma and wait on Notre Dame.

From where I sit I believe that we do wind up with a P3 eventually, that is if the PAC is willing. Otherwise it will be a P4 with the 4th conference being a construct for less money but with built in access to the playoff.

So the networks will work, as I think they have been, to reunite some of these rivalries in the end. The SEC has A&M. The original Texa-homa deal did not include Tech.

It would be easier for ESPN to try to grab them all and if they are willing to pay we could take 4 or I suppose even 6. But the easier fix would be Texas and Kansas to the SEC and it would be appealing to Texas because it gives them an advantage over OU to have them in the Big 10.

The best possible solution for the Big 10 would be Oklahoma / Notre Dame to 16.

The best possible solution for the SEC under these circumstance would be Texas / Kansas (provided we aren't raiding the ACC).

Texas & Texas A&M give us premium ad rates for Texas via ESPN. Kansas gives Missouri their rival and helps them assimilate and the basketball angle you covered nicely.

If N.D. abandons the ACC in 2035 for the Big 10 then you form a new conference:

Baylor, Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, T.C.U.
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Boston College can join with the Big East if they want to abandon big time football, or some of them can be added to the SEC or Big 10 if need be.

I think the SEC would find a way to accommodate Duke /or North Carolina and Virginia if ESPN wanted to pay for it. Perhaps Syracuse and Pitt wind up with the Big 10. Wake and B.C. might be better off in the Big East.

Then we have 18 each which can remain division-less or break into 3.

The fight between FOX and ESPN will be for properties. With A&M and UT DFW is covered amply for ESPN because Arkansas has a presence there as well. Why pay 70 million plus for Oklahoma? Let FOX cover that.

If the new conference is split 50/50 like the Big 12 is now I don't think that would hurt ESPN's feelings and it gives FOX a little Southeastern exposure.

The issue with the PAC is that they really are only good for 2 decent games a week and FOX and ESPN are getting all they want for that night time slot.

It's going to heat up from here and as it does it's going to be fascinating to see what strategies are in play.

Glad you posted and hope to hear more from you soon.

Going to point this out:

What doomed the SWC? The final years saw:

-Small regional footprint with less population

-UT power tripping going unchecked

-Good teams leaving

-Non-competitive play on the national level

-Contracts that couldn’t compete with the bigger leagues

All this has happened before and it’s all happening again in the L10

SWC did have small regional footprint in 1 state
There was no rm to expand, back then 12 was tabo
Same promblems, more options