Some of you who like to peruse Twitter will probably remember what I'm about to say.

Think back a few months to the random musings that surrounded the Big 12 expansion conversation. Many of those musings and bold statements from the Twitterati seem foolish in hindsight. Most of them seemed foolish even at the time. I'd like to direct your attention, however, to one string of musings that actually makes more sense today than when it was written. That in and of itself is a rarity if not an altogether unprecedented event.

Do you remember Tim Montemayor, the radio personality turned house flipper? Yeah, that one. The one that stuck out like a sore thumb because he was neither a journalist nor a self-proclaimed "guy who knows people." He was some combination of the two and that was funny, but he did have something interesting to say.

He tweeted that Texas had broken Oklahoma's trust because they were preparing a "Plan B." He said that the powers that be in the Big 12 could not agree on much of anything and for that reason expansion was dead. In fact, he was basically the only person in the Twitterverse that made a few predictions about realignment while simultaneously saying the Big 12 wasn't going to do anything. That alone made him unique and that doesn't necessarily make him credible, but I think it's worth taking into consideration. It's also worth noting that he doesn't talk about the subject often. Unlike the Dudes or the Fluguars of the world, he doesn't discuss the minutia and try to dissect every possible angle. He doesn't claim to be "on the inside" where he receives regular intel so that he can share for all the world to see. If he did do those things then that would probably be a dead giveaway for a guy who's receiving information no sooner than any of the rest of us. In other words, just a guy with a Twitter account looking for attention. Montemayor, however, hardly ever broaches the topic. People who know things tend to be more discreet.

He used to be a sports radio guy in Salt Lake City and apparently his only connection to the sports world came via BYU. I'll get to why that might matter later.

I know this is going to sound crazy...what, did you expect something uber logical from me? But in light of some of the more recent events, there are some dots that might be connecting...

1. ESPN plans on expanding college sports coverage in Mexico. The SECN and ESPNU are about to go live there.

2. Texas may be getting ready to make their final move by keeping Mike Perrin around for a couple more years.

3. Perrin, in fact, said a few months ago he wouldn't be surprised to see something happen with regard to Big 12 expansion. At least, that is how the quote is always presented. The full quote has never been made available because it came from a sit down interview with Kirk Bohls. Perhaps Bohls misunderstood the tone of the statement because clearly Big 12 expansion is done. Just a thought.

4. The PAC may be getting serious about their network.

5. The ACC Network will get off the ground right around the time Perrin's tenure is over.

So if some of our speculation on this board is true...1) that ESPN wants as much of the TX market as possible in part to sell to a Mexican audience, 2) that people want to get this over with as soon as possible, and 3) that the networks are about to go war over the Big 12 then all of a sudden "Plan B" starts to come into focus.

I didn't take it all that seriously when it was first proposed and of course I'm not certain it's real now. Unfortunately, I have no real connections so I rely on you all for my info

For those of you unfamiliar with what exactly I'm referring to when I say Plan B, here it is:

Texas takes the rest of the TX schools in the Big 12, partners with BYU and Houston, and then shops the whole bloc to another conference. A little bizarre right? More bizarre than most suggestions, but it's starting to make more sense.

When JR mentioned yesterday that ESPN may want to protect their TX properties in the SEC, something clicked. I realized I had heard something similar in the past and went back to put my finger on it. That's when I remembered Montemayor's prediction.

He said that this bloc would get shopped to another conference. He never said it would happen, he just said it was the plan. He specifically did not say which conference the group would end up in and said, in fact, that he didn't know. He said only that the plan had been formed. He did say though that 20 team conferences were entirely realistic. Well, 14+6=20.

So what if that's what we're seeing the stage set for?

We've talked about Texas and friends before and I'm sure we will again, but let me note why BYU makes sense in this context.

1. They're already an ESPN property
2. They're not entangled to another school unlike Oklahoma or Kansas
3. They're a conservative religious school that will, in my opinion, never get consideration from the PAC. Can't think of anyone else that would consider them either except maybe the SEC.
4. They have a national fan base
5. Much of their fan base resides in the Mountain West region and while Utah is especially prosperous, that region is full of strong growing markets. It is also full of a growing Spanish speaking population. There's a great deal of overlap there.
6. If BYU was in a division with mostly TX schools then the travel wouldn't be that unreasonable
7. They're one of the few available programs that has good attendance, good revenue, and fairly solid basketball.

If ESPN wants to capitalize on the TX market and utilize the LHN as a Spanish language option while simultaneously tapping the Mountain West with one school then this has got to be the plan.

The BYU aspect is especially weird, but until yesterday I had never heard anyone else say that a ton of TX schools might move to one conference. The only connection is that this Montemayor guy apparently knows people at BYU. If they knew what "Plan B" was in the first place then it must mean they were involved.

So could the essential merging of the SEC and the SWC be what some of the recent activity has been all about?

So let's say Oklahoma and Kansas end up moving to the Big Ten after all. Let's say the PAC cleans things up with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, and one more. Let's say West Virginia heads off to the ACC.

Everyone is accounted for at that stage.

Thoughts?

Interesting thoughts. Texas, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston and BYU certainly do make up a decent bloc. However, Texas is also about control and power. Therefore, in this scenario, I would see it as even more likely that OK/Kansas (SEC/Big 10), or OK/OK State (SEC only) move first, freeing Texas to be the power broker for the Big 12.

The new even more Texas centric Big 12 would then be forced to expand with Houston/BYU to replace OK/Kansas or Ok State.

If ESPN ponied up the right amount of money, then that would allow the Big 12 to simply be stable. In the meantime, Texas could also talk to Arizona/Arizona St about coming to the Big 12 and if the money fit, then the Big 12 would have pulled the power 5 schools its after (this assumes of course, the money is right or that the PAC network is still floundering).

Monte' is similar to Swaim in the have a connection or two, post what they hear, and stand by it.

Texas has a history of fully exploring all their options even if it runs off a few schools.

I assume option one involves both UT and OU playing nicely, while plan B is Texas looking out for their state schools and rebuilding or joining another conference after OU moves on.

(04-25-2017 03:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Monte' is similar to Swaim in the have a connection or two, post what they hear, and stand by it.

Texas has a history of fully exploring all their options even if it runs off a few schools.

I assume option one involves both UT and OU playing nicely, while plan B is Texas looking out for their state schools and rebuilding or joining another conference after OU moves on.

Yeah, I would pretty much say the same.

I forgot to add earlier that one of the reasons this makes sense to me is that Texas has a history of wanting to remain with their in-state schools. They didn't really want to leave the SWC, the took more schools than necessary to the Big 12, they added TCU even when they needed markets outside of TX, they battled the PAC over Baylor when the PAC wanted Colorado instead.

Makes sense that Texas wants to find a home for everyone and play them just like they've done their entire history. They're notorious for wanting their cake and eating it too.

(04-25-2017 03:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Monte' is similar to Swaim in the have a connection or two, post what they hear, and stand by it.

Texas has a history of fully exploring all their options even if it runs off a few schools.

I assume option one involves both UT and OU playing nicely, while plan B is Texas looking out for their state schools and rebuilding or joining another conference after OU moves on.

Yeah, I would pretty much say the same.

I forgot to add earlier that one of the reasons this makes sense to me is that Texas has a history of wanting to remain with their in-state schools. They didn't really want to leave the SWC, the took more schools than necessary to the Big 12, they added TCU even when they needed markets outside of TX, they battled the PAC over Baylor when the PAC wanted Colorado instead.

Makes sense that Texas wants to find a home for everyone and play them just like they've done their entire history. They're notorious for wanting their cake and eating it too.

And they have the fattest cow in the stockyard so they do tend to get what they want. Make no mistake outside of the basketball schools of the ACC and the SEC football product, ESPN wanted two products. They built the ACC to attract Notre Dame and they've helped to build the SEC to attract Texas. They guaranteed Texas 15 million a year to keep them around. I'd say that they are not going to walk away from that investment and neither do they really care what happens to Oklahoma or Kansas as long as they get Texas. They would in all likelihood wind up paying for 5 Big 12 schools if they land Texas, and they might have to pay for all 10 to land Kansas and Oklahoma. Remember Oklahoma's long term value is not as great if they don't play regularly in Texas. The RRR is just one game a year and if that is all they play then they are cut off from recruiting visits.

The game is Texas because it is massive, it is affluent, it is passionate, it has Mexican appeal, and it gives you DFW and all of the rest. With Texas the only thing Oklahoma brings to our table is their history and brand status. With Texas we don't need OU. And I seriously doubt that if we head to the days of four major conferences with two each held by FOX and ESPN that ESPN wants to surrender an inch of Texas to FOX.

(04-25-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Monte' is similar to Swaim in the have a connection or two, post what they hear, and stand by it.

Texas has a history of fully exploring all their options even if it runs off a few schools.

I assume option one involves both UT and OU playing nicely, while plan B is Texas looking out for their state schools and rebuilding or joining another conference after OU moves on.

Yeah, I would pretty much say the same.

I forgot to add earlier that one of the reasons this makes sense to me is that Texas has a history of wanting to remain with their in-state schools. They didn't really want to leave the SWC, the took more schools than necessary to the Big 12, they added TCU even when they needed markets outside of TX, they battled the PAC over Baylor when the PAC wanted Colorado instead.

Makes sense that Texas wants to find a home for everyone and play them just like they've done their entire history. They're notorious for wanting their cake and eating it too.

And they have the fattest cow in the stockyard so they do tend to get what they want. Make no mistake outside of the basketball schools of the ACC and the SEC football product, ESPN wanted two products. They built the ACC to attract Notre Dame and they've helped to build the SEC to attract Texas. They guaranteed Texas 15 million a year to keep them around. I'd say that they are not going to walk away from that investment and neither do they really care what happens to Oklahoma or Kansas as long as they get Texas. They would in all likelihood wind up paying for 5 Big 12 schools if they land Texas, and they might have to pay for all 10 to land Kansas and Oklahoma. Remember Oklahoma's long term value is not as great if they don't play regularly in Texas. The RRR is just one game a year and if that is all they play then they are cut off from recruiting visits.

The game is Texas because it is massive, it is affluent, it is passionate, it has Mexican appeal, and it gives you DFW and all of the rest. With Texas the only thing Oklahoma brings to our table is their history and brand status. With Texas we don't need OU. And I seriously doubt that if we head to the days of four major conferences with two each held by FOX and ESPN that ESPN wants to surrender an inch of Texas to FOX.

It's more about securing better ratings. Not just regionally, but nationally. Can a network charge advertisers more for a package of B12 games be PAC 12 games? I think so. Heck, I think the B12 Might even beat out ACC for average viewers of Saturdays.

(04-25-2017 05:16 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Monte' is similar to Swaim in the have a connection or two, post what they hear, and stand by it.

Texas has a history of fully exploring all their options even if it runs off a few schools.

I assume option one involves both UT and OU playing nicely, while plan B is Texas looking out for their state schools and rebuilding or joining another conference after OU moves on.

Yeah, I would pretty much say the same.

I forgot to add earlier that one of the reasons this makes sense to me is that Texas has a history of wanting to remain with their in-state schools. They didn't really want to leave the SWC, the took more schools than necessary to the Big 12, they added TCU even when they needed markets outside of TX, they battled the PAC over Baylor when the PAC wanted Colorado instead.

Makes sense that Texas wants to find a home for everyone and play them just like they've done their entire history. They're notorious for wanting their cake and eating it too.

And they have the fattest cow in the stockyard so they do tend to get what they want. Make no mistake outside of the basketball schools of the ACC and the SEC football product, ESPN wanted two products. They built the ACC to attract Notre Dame and they've helped to build the SEC to attract Texas. They guaranteed Texas 15 million a year to keep them around. I'd say that they are not going to walk away from that investment and neither do they really care what happens to Oklahoma or Kansas as long as they get Texas. They would in all likelihood wind up paying for 5 Big 12 schools if they land Texas, and they might have to pay for all 10 to land Kansas and Oklahoma. Remember Oklahoma's long term value is not as great if they don't play regularly in Texas. The RRR is just one game a year and if that is all they play then they are cut off from recruiting visits.

The game is Texas because it is massive, it is affluent, it is passionate, it has Mexican appeal, and it gives you DFW and all of the rest. With Texas the only thing Oklahoma brings to our table is their history and brand status. With Texas we don't need OU. And I seriously doubt that if we head to the days of four major conferences with two each held by FOX and ESPN that ESPN wants to surrender an inch of Texas to FOX.

It's more about securing better ratings. Not just regionally, but nationally. Can a network charge advertisers more for a package of B12 games be PAC 12 games? I think so. Heck, I think the B12 Might even beat out ACC for average viewers of Saturdays.

I don't know if they beat the ACC for total viewers or not, but they beat them like a drum for % of total households watching!

(04-25-2017 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  For those of you unfamiliar with what exactly I'm referring to when I say Plan B, here it is:

Texas takes the rest of the TX schools in the Big 12, partners with BYU and Houston, and then shops the whole bloc to another conference. A little bizarre right? More bizarre than most suggestions, but it's starting to make more sense.

When JR mentioned yesterday that ESPN may want to protect their TX properties in the SEC, something clicked. I realized I had heard something similar in the past and went back to put my finger on it. That's when I remembered Montemayor's prediction.

He said that this bloc would get shopped to another conference. He never said it would happen, he just said it was the plan. He specifically did not say which conference the group would end up in and said, in fact, that he didn't know. He said only that the plan had been formed. He did say though that 20 team conferences were entirely realistic. Well, 14+6=20

If plan B were to start rolling, it would mean that Oklahoma had just left the B12. They could go to the B1G with KU, but I'm sure the SEC would offer OU and OSU prior to any Delaney news conference of that sorts.

That would leave Texas and seven dwarfs to make the best decisions for themselves at that point. This is where I think the SEC might get lucky and finally have a shot at landed UT as their fan base might finally push their administration to rejoin their old historic rivals in the SEC. if not , plan B will have the old Big 8 schools plus WVU looking for new homes.

I think Texas might be better off staying at 8 members or reshuffle with other schools but reduce the number of conference games and schedule more P5 schools to make up the difference.

I could see it settling like this:
Texas, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, BYU, KSU, ISU

SEC 14 + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

If the PAC was still courting Texas:
PAC 12 + Texas, Tech, Baylor, TCU
SEC + OU, OSU
American + KU, KSU, ISU, WVU

(04-25-2017 05:16 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 03:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Monte' is similar to Swaim in the have a connection or two, post what they hear, and stand by it.

Texas has a history of fully exploring all their options even if it runs off a few schools.

I assume option one involves both UT and OU playing nicely, while plan B is Texas looking out for their state schools and rebuilding or joining another conference after OU moves on.

Yeah, I would pretty much say the same.

I forgot to add earlier that one of the reasons this makes sense to me is that Texas has a history of wanting to remain with their in-state schools. They didn't really want to leave the SWC, the took more schools than necessary to the Big 12, they added TCU even when they needed markets outside of TX, they battled the PAC over Baylor when the PAC wanted Colorado instead.

Makes sense that Texas wants to find a home for everyone and play them just like they've done their entire history. They're notorious for wanting their cake and eating it too.

And they have the fattest cow in the stockyard so they do tend to get what they want. Make no mistake outside of the basketball schools of the ACC and the SEC football product, ESPN wanted two products. They built the ACC to attract Notre Dame and they've helped to build the SEC to attract Texas. They guaranteed Texas 15 million a year to keep them around. I'd say that they are not going to walk away from that investment and neither do they really care what happens to Oklahoma or Kansas as long as they get Texas. They would in all likelihood wind up paying for 5 Big 12 schools if they land Texas, and they might have to pay for all 10 to land Kansas and Oklahoma. Remember Oklahoma's long term value is not as great if they don't play regularly in Texas. The RRR is just one game a year and if that is all they play then they are cut off from recruiting visits.

The game is Texas because it is massive, it is affluent, it is passionate, it has Mexican appeal, and it gives you DFW and all of the rest. With Texas the only thing Oklahoma brings to our table is their history and brand status. With Texas we don't need OU. And I seriously doubt that if we head to the days of four major conferences with two each held by FOX and ESPN that ESPN wants to surrender an inch of Texas to FOX.

It's more about securing better ratings. Not just regionally, but nationally. Can a network charge advertisers more for a package of B12 games be PAC 12 games? I think so. Heck, I think the B12 Might even beat out ACC for average viewers of Saturdays.

(04-25-2017 05:45 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  For those of you unfamiliar with what exactly I'm referring to when I say Plan B, here it is:

Texas takes the rest of the TX schools in the Big 12, partners with BYU and Houston, and then shops the whole bloc to another conference. A little bizarre right? More bizarre than most suggestions, but it's starting to make more sense.

When JR mentioned yesterday that ESPN may want to protect their TX properties in the SEC, something clicked. I realized I had heard something similar in the past and went back to put my finger on it. That's when I remembered Montemayor's prediction.

He said that this bloc would get shopped to another conference. He never said it would happen, he just said it was the plan. He specifically did not say which conference the group would end up in and said, in fact, that he didn't know. He said only that the plan had been formed. He did say though that 20 team conferences were entirely realistic. Well, 14+6=20

If plan B were to start rolling, it would mean that Oklahoma had just left the B12. They could go to the B1G with KU, but I'm sure the SEC would offer OU and OSU prior to any Delaney news conference of that sorts.

That would leave Texas and seven dwarfs to make the best decisions for themselves at that point. This is where I think the SEC might get lucky and finally have a shot at landed UT as their fan base might finally push their administration to rejoin their old historic rivals in the SEC. if not , plan B will have the old Big 8 schools plus WVU looking for new homes.

I think Texas might be better off staying at 8 members or reshuffle with other schools but reduce the number of conference games and schedule more P5 schools to make up the difference.

I could see it settling like this:
Texas, Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, BYU, KSU, ISU

SEC 14 + OU, OSU, KU, WVU

If the PAC was still courting Texas:
PAC 12 + Texas, Tech, Baylor, TCU
SEC + OU, OSU
American + KU, KSU, ISU, WVU

I don't see ESPN paying BYU 5X what they are making now for no real additional benefit. BYU can spit time with the PAC and SEC to cover half of the country for 20% of the price of the SEC.
There is now way that that ESPN lets Texas get out of their "contract". JR had the right idea of the Big 8 schools going to the PAC/B1G and the SWC schools going to the SEC.......but there is and always has been a problem.....what to do with West Virginia because they make 19 and the ACC isn't going to take them.

SEC takes Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia and sends South Carolina to the ACC that also adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati and UConn/Temple.

Just for kicks and giggles, let's break down some of the math...

Texas has 27.8 million people. Divide that by 6 schools and you get 4.6 million.

Oklahoma has 3.9 million people. Divide that by 2 schools and you get 1.95 million.

If you assume each person is paying the full rate(obviously there aren't that many cable households, but this is just an illustration) in TX for the addition of A&M then there's absolutely no need to take more TX schools. To my knowledge though, we are not getting full penetration in that state. Our ratings also have to be somewhat lagging because we only have 1 school in the state and there are numerous watchable programs. This is the reason I've been harping on taking TCU or someone else. There are more people in DFW than in the entire state of OK.

The premise I'm presenting is that we would benefit significantly more from dominating the state of TX than by simply tapping it. Based purely on market size, each TX addition is worth more than twice as much in potential viewership as the OK additions combined. That's also before you account for the marketing of the SECN to a population in Mexico that's probably more interested in more local TX schools than anyone else. It's also before you count sub rates domestically for what I theorize would be a conversion of the LHN into a Spanish language broadcast.

The math is a little simplistic obviously, but the point is we achieve full saturation in the 2nd largest market in the country by taking all the viable programs.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!

When you round out the whole thing with BYU, you are an adding an additional 3 million people in the state of UT. That's not counting the national fan base or the overlap demand that might exist among the Spanish speaking population in Mountain West states where Mormonism is pretty big.

Demographics, demographics, demographics....

By contrast you lose out on the state of OK which has 3.9m, but would have to be divided by 2. You miss out on the state of KS which has 2.9m, but would have to be divided by 2. You also miss out on the state of IA which has 3.1m and only has 1 school up for grabs. You miss out on WV which has 1.8m. But none of these states have a lot to offer in the way of talent(which is huge for competitive advantage and thus content creation) or economic development. OK is a slight exception there, but the point is that TX is way ahead. So is UT for that matter. TX and UT are the 2nd and 3rd fastest growing states. Also in the top 10 are CO, NV, and AZ which are 4th, 6th, and 7th respectively. Guess who lives in those states...lots of Mormons and Latinos. There's a trend here.

We've missed out on tapping NC and VA so the demographic upswing needs to come from somewhere else. Might as well be the other end of the Sun Belt.

That and I think JR made a very salient point earlier. If you cut OU off from playing a lot of games in TX then their value takes a dive. They'd still be valuable, but not nearly as valuable. Do we really want to take 2 OK schools and leave most of TX to someone else? By contrast, the value of the TX schools is maximized by playing each other. It's a renewal of regionalism and long standing rivalries.

Let the B1G or PAC have OU and KU. We are actually better off by making another move.

I'm just saying, it makes a lot of sense.

(04-25-2017 10:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Just for kicks and giggles, let's break down some of the math...

Texas has 27.8 million people. Divide that by 6 schools and you get 4.6 million.

Oklahoma has 3.9 million people. Divide that by 2 schools and you get 1.95 million.

If you assume each person is paying the full rate(obviously there aren't that many cable households, but this is just an illustration) in TX for the addition of A&M then there's absolutely no need to take more TX schools. To my knowledge though, we are not getting full penetration in that state. Our ratings also have to be somewhat lagging because we only have 1 school in the state and there are numerous watchable programs. This is the reason I've been harping on taking TCU or someone else. There are more people in DFW than in the entire state of OK.

The premise I'm presenting is that we would benefit significantly more from dominating the state of TX than by simply tapping it. Based purely on market size, each TX addition is worth more than twice as much in potential viewership as the OK additions combined. That's also before you account for the marketing of the SECN to a population in Mexico that's probably more interested in more local TX schools than anyone else. It's also before you count sub rates domestically for what I theorize would be a conversion of the LHN into a Spanish language broadcast.

The math is a little simplistic obviously, but the point is we achieve full saturation in the 2nd largest market in the country by taking all the viable programs.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL!

When you round out the whole thing with BYU, you are an adding an additional 3 million people in the state of UT. That's not counting the national fan base or the overlap demand that might exist among the Spanish speaking population in Mountain West states where Mormonism is pretty big.

Demographics, demographics, demographics....

By contrast you lose out on the state of OK which has 3.9m, but would have to be divided by 2. You miss out on the state of KS which has 2.9m, but would have to be divided by 2. You also miss out on the state of IA which has 3.1m and only has 1 school up for grabs. You miss out on WV which has 1.8m. But none of these states have a lot to offer in the way of talent(which is huge for competitive advantage and thus content creation) or economic development. OK is a slight exception there, but the point is that TX is way ahead. So is UT for that matter. TX and UT are the 2nd and 3rd fastest growing states. Also in the top 10 are CO, NV, and AZ which are 4th, 6th, and 7th respectively. Guess who lives in those states...lots of Mormons and Latinos. There's a trend here.

We've missed out on tapping NC and VA so the demographic upswing needs to come from somewhere else. Might as well be the other end of the Sun Belt.

That and I think JR made a very salient point earlier. If you cut OU off from playing a lot of games in TX then their value takes a dive. They'd still be valuable, but not nearly as valuable. Do we really want to take 2 OK schools and leave most of TX to someone else? By contrast, the value of the TX schools is maximized by playing each other. It's a renewal of regionalism and long standing rivalries.

Let the B1G or PAC have OU and KU. We are actually better off by making another move.

I'm just saying, it makes a lot of sense.

And with the possible exception of Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, and T.C.U. are currently very competitive. They add more content for the biggest money sport than Iowa State, Kansas State, or Kansas. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State offer good content as well.

You're ignoring SWC Syndrome

Too many mouths feeding at the same trough

Not enough interest in the games outside of the state

The key is to REDUCE the number of Texoma teams feeding so the blue ribbon hogs can get big and fat and strong and win some blue ribbons

At most, you want the 5 programs that maximize your exposure in Texas and its border states which are UT, A&M, OU, LSU and Arkansas.

Adding in redundant little brothers and private tag alongs makes politicians happy but leads to failed conferences like the B12 and the two conferences that spawned it

(04-26-2017 04:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You're ignoring SWC Syndrome

Too many mouths feeding at the same trough

Not enough interest in the games outside of the state

The key is to REDUCE the number of Texoma teams feeding so the blue ribbon hogs can get big and fat and strong and win some blue ribbons

At most, you want the 5 programs that maximize your exposure in Texas and its border states which are UT, A&M, OU, LSU and Arkansas.

Adding in redundant little brothers and private tag alongs makes politicians happy but leads to failed conferences like the B12 and the two conferences that spawned it

And if you can't get OU?

(04-26-2017 04:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 04:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You're ignoring SWC Syndrome

Too many mouths feeding at the same trough

Not enough interest in the games outside of the state

The key is to REDUCE the number of Texoma teams feeding so the blue ribbon hogs can get big and fat and strong and win some blue ribbons

At most, you want the 5 programs that maximize your exposure in Texas and its border states which are UT, A&M, OU, LSU and Arkansas.

Adding in redundant little brothers and private tag alongs makes politicians happy but leads to failed conferences like the B12 and the two conferences that spawned it

And if you can't get OU?

TCU is the next logical choice (obvious personal bias acknowledged)

TCU is quickly rising as a major sports brand on its own but having SEC teams physically coming to DFW to play the hometown team is huge in terms of firmly planting the SEC flag in a very fractured market.

(04-26-2017 04:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You're ignoring SWC Syndrome

Too many mouths feeding at the same trough

Not enough interest in the games outside of the state

The key is to REDUCE the number of Texoma teams feeding so the blue ribbon hogs can get big and fat and strong and win some blue ribbons

At most, you want the 5 programs that maximize your exposure in Texas and its border states which are UT, A&M, OU, LSU and Arkansas.

Adding in redundant little brothers and private tag alongs makes politicians happy but leads to failed conferences like the B12 and the two conferences that spawned it

I understand that thought and it's why I would have never come up with the idea of moving the TX schools to the SEC on my own.

When I think about it though, I'm not sure the Big 12's problem was too many TX schools. I think it was 1)weak leadership that allowed UT to run roughshod over virtually everyone else and 2) a culture that valued individual gain at the expense of the whole. The fact that most of the markets outside of TX were weak, I think, contributed to a quick decline. I don't think you'll see either problem in the SEC as there are too many power brands that would check UT. That includes A&M who I think will never kowtow to the Longhorns ever again.

It's true that the other TX schools would be loyal to UT most likely as their golden ticket would be connected to them, but they'll still be heavily outnumbered.

And I'm not against taking schools outside of TX at the same time either. It's one of the reasons I'm not really against an SEC/Big 12 merger either. Texas' influence is definitely mitigated in that scenario.

You have to maximize value for your slots. Schools like TTU, OSU, BU ISU, KSU etc simply don't bring anywhere near the value needed to justify a slot in a P4 conference and are only mentioned due to political connections to schools a P4 would want.

Whereas a school like OU and LSU bring their own state plus a good chunk of one of the major TX metro areas and are the games Texans want to watch. If you told Texans that they'd get to see UT and A&M play OU, Arkansas, LSU and Ole Miss every year plus each other, those games would get huge ratings compared to UT vs TTU or A&M vs Baylor which are barely popular in TX

(04-26-2017 06:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 04:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You're ignoring SWC Syndrome

Too many mouths feeding at the same trough

Not enough interest in the games outside of the state

The key is to REDUCE the number of Texoma teams feeding so the blue ribbon hogs can get big and fat and strong and win some blue ribbons

At most, you want the 5 programs that maximize your exposure in Texas and its border states which are UT, A&M, OU, LSU and Arkansas.

Adding in redundant little brothers and private tag alongs makes politicians happy but leads to failed conferences like the B12 and the two conferences that spawned it

I understand that thought and it's why I would have never come up with the idea of moving the TX schools to the SEC on my own.

When I think about it though, I'm not sure the Big 12's problem was too many TX schools. I think it was 1)weak leadership that allowed UT to run roughshod over virtually everyone else and 2) a culture that valued individual gain at the expense of the whole. The fact that most of the markets outside of TX were weak, I think, contributed to a quick decline. I don't think you'll see either problem in the SEC as there are too many power brands that would check UT. That includes A&M who I think will never kowtow to the Longhorns ever again.

It's true that the other TX schools would be loyal to UT most likely as their golden ticket would be connected to them, but they'll still be heavily outnumbered.

And I'm not against taking schools outside of TX at the same time either. It's one of the reasons I'm not really against an SEC/Big 12 merger either. Texas' influence is definitely mitigated in that scenario.

Except the merger could not happen until 2024 and ESPN wouldn't pay for it. FOX owns 50% of the rights until then. If ESPN gets to hold all of Texas it's worth a helluva lot more than Oklahoma, Kansas and Iowa combined. And quite frankly if we have T.C.U. and Texas nobody needs Oklahoma, and an Oklahoma with only one game in Texas a year won't be the Oklahoma of yesteryear, and not even the Oklahoma of today. What they will be is the future Nebraska if they wind up in the Big 10, but they might fare alright in the PAC.

(04-26-2017 07:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to maximize value for your slots. Schools like TTU, OSU, BU ISU, KSU etc simply don't bring anywhere near the value needed to justify a slot in a P4 conference and are only mentioned due to political connections to schools a P4 would want.

Whereas a school like OU and LSU bring their own state plus a good chunk of one of the major TX metro areas and are the games Texans want to watch. If you told Texans that they'd get to see UT and A&M play OU, Arkansas, LSU and Ole Miss every year plus each other, those games would get huge ratings compared to UT vs TTU or A&M vs Baylor which are barely popular in TX

10th that model is kaput! As long as ESPN pays us more it makes no difference, none! This is just the first of three or four steps towards a complete merger between the PAC and Big 10 and the SEC and ACC. We may keep our labels but we are going to function like a league when all of this works its way through. We will get paid for the combined footprints of both conferences and have our networks delivered together in a bundle. This will end realignment for the next 40 years or more and free your Aggies to play Florida State, or Virginia Tech or Miami or whoever you wish more often. I don't know how soon but all non P5 games are facing extinction. Regional rivalries will be highlighted, and one day we may some blending with divisions across former conference lines to increase the ease of travel within divisions. It cuts overhead for minor sports.

In the new paradigm you need to be thinking League FOX vs League ESPN. League FOX will consist of the PAC / Big 10 / Former Big 8 / and a smidgen of the Old Big East. League ESPN will be the SEC / ACC / Old SWC / and bigger piece of the Old Big East. The payouts between the conferences will eventually be the same for TV revenue. Our advantages will be on gate, donations, concessions, merchandising. So it won't matter to ESPN that 4 Texas schools or even 5 are in what was once the SEC and two Virginia schools are in the ACC and 4 North Carolina schools with them. The SEC won't be trying to get into North Carolina and Virginia because we will be sold there anyway and as will the ACC in Texas.

It's sure not 1991, and it's not even close to be 2010-1. It's a whole new ball game and it will require getting used to the concepts, but if this goes through everything will have changed, and I believe changed tremendously for the better.

(04-26-2017 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 07:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You have to maximize value for your slots. Schools like TTU, OSU, BU ISU, KSU etc simply don't bring anywhere near the value needed to justify a slot in a P4 conference and are only mentioned due to political connections to schools a P4 would want.

Whereas a school like OU and LSU bring their own state plus a good chunk of one of the major TX metro areas and are the games Texans want to watch. If you told Texans that they'd get to see UT and A&M play OU, Arkansas, LSU and Ole Miss every year plus each other, those games would get huge ratings compared to UT vs TTU or A&M vs Baylor which are barely popular in TX

10th that model is kaput! As long as ESPN pays us more it makes no difference, none! This is just the first of three or four steps towards a complete merger between the PAC and Big 10 and the SEC and ACC. We may keep our labels but we are going to function like a league when all of this works its way through. We will get paid for the combined footprints of both conferences and have our networks delivered together in a bundle. This will end realignment for the next 40 years or more and free your Aggies to play Florida State, or Virginia Tech or Miami or whoever you wish more often. I don't know how soon but all non P5 games are facing extinction. Regional rivalries will be highlighted, and one day we may some blending with divisions across former conference lines to increase the ease of travel within divisions. It cuts overhead for minor sports.

In the new paradigm you need to be thinking League FOX vs League ESPN. League FOX will consist of the PAC / Big 10 / Former Big 8 / and a smidgen of the Old Big East. League ESPN will be the SEC / ACC / Old SWC / and bigger piece of the Old Big East. The payouts between the conferences will eventually be the same for TV revenue. Our advantages will be on gate, donations, concessions, merchandising. So it won't matter to ESPN that 4 Texas schools or even 5 are in what was once the SEC and two Virginia schools are in the ACC and 4 North Carolina schools with them. The SEC won't be trying to get into North Carolina and Virginia because we will be sold there anyway and as will the ACC in Texas.

It's sure not 1991, and it's not even close to be 2010-1. It's a whole new ball game and it will require getting used to the concepts, but if this goes through everything will have changed, and I believe changed tremendously for the better.

Speaking of the SECN and ACCN being carried in the same markets, there was something else I was going to mention in the original post and forgot until just now.

I don't think it's coincidence that Perrin is serving until 2019 which happens to be the year the ACCN launches. If the SEC expands by 4 within the next couple of years, around the same time the ACCN is launching that is, then ESPN is going to have some extra leverage over cable companies.

The ACCN might otherwise have some cable carriage struggles in certain markets, but if a bigger and bolder SECN is on the market at the same time then ESPN can use the existing watchability of one to aid the carriage of the other. That's in addition to the other leverage they would have obviously.

ESPN can say..."hey cable companies, you can get a bargain price by putting all this additional content on in new markets!"

At least, that is my theory.