These 4....Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas...are the ones I think ESPN would like to swing into the SEC.

Sure, that's the heart of the Big 12, but it also leaves a good number of decent programs that could make up the core of a new league that would be more likely to sign a deal with a network like ESPN as opposed to another.

Let's look at it like this...there are a ton of decent products in the East and Midwest that don't really have a good home. The Big Ten is very selective and not likely to take any of them. The ACC doesn't really need them because that league needs big time products to catch up. The PAC 12 isn't likely to take any of them because the geography is a little harsh and they're snobbish in their own right.

The schools I'm also about to list are at greater threat to be relegated and therefore more susceptible to the whims of ESPN. So what if the Mouse could make more money off of them by knocking down their 1st and 2nd tier contracts, but ironically giving them a conference network to take advantage of the varied market penetration?

West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Memphis, Kansas State, Iowa State

East: West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, East Carolina, Temple, UConn

Partial members: Navy and Army for football. Wichita State for basketball and minor sports.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if ESPN converted the LHN platform into a network for this league that it would bring down more 3rd tier revenue than the PAC. That's not a high threshold to meet, but I think it may be an important one.

It puts an immense amount of pressure on the PAC to cut a more beneficial deal with ESPN perhaps. Either that or some of the members start looking around and this perhaps becomes an opportunity for the network to help the Big Ten acquire some interesting properties. At that point, the Mouse is in a closer relationship with everyone and that benefits their bottom line.

Thoughts?

That would be a very workable solution. The new conference would have a reasonable claim to being a power conference and I think would have a realistic chance of getting an undefeated champion in the playoff.

I will add that, personally, I am in favor of no further expansion as the league has almost gotten to the point of being too large to manage with the division set up.

Now, if we could go to 9 games and adopt a 4 permanent, 5 rotating set up then that would make 18 teams workable.

(10-05-2018 07:51 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I will add that, personally, I am in favor of no further expansion as the league has almost gotten to the point of being too large to manage with the division set up.

Now, if we could go to 9 games and adopt a 4 permanent, 5 rotating set up then that would make 18 teams workable.

Need to change the division rules right now. Six years to play everybody in the other division is not ideal.

West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Memphis, Kansas State, Iowa State

East: West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, East Carolina, Temple, UConn

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas...to SEC


I don’t know, if the Big Ten makes a serious bid for Oklahoma, then I see the SEC offering Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to keep OU from joining the B1G. What that would do is cause Texas to have all the negotiating power. If I’m Texas, I push for a partial membership deal to keep what’s left of the Big 12 together and within power 5 status. Honestly, only Kansas and West Virginia have options left in realignment.

(10-05-2018 11:06 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-05-2018 07:51 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I will add that, personally, I am in favor of no further expansion as the league has almost gotten to the point of being too large to manage with the division set up.

Now, if we could go to 9 games and adopt a 4 permanent, 5 rotating set up then that would make 18 teams workable.

Need to change the division rules right now. Six years to play everybody in the other division is not ideal.

I know. It is a crime that Mizzou only gets to entertain Alabama every six years. Seriously though, conference mates should play more often than the present set up.

(10-05-2018 11:17 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston, Memphis, Kansas State, Iowa State

East: West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, East Carolina, Temple, UConn

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas...to SEC


I don’t know, if the Big Ten makes a serious bid for Oklahoma, then I see the SEC offering Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to keep OU from joining the B1G. What that would do is cause Texas to have all the negotiating power. If I’m Texas, I push for a partial membership deal to keep what’s left of the Big 12 together and within power 5 status. Honestly, only Kansas and West Virginia have options left in realignment.

If the Big 10 wasn't serious about Oklahoma then I don't see any impetus at all for the SEC to take OSU.

There are easier solutions to scheduling that are available to us without having to have a rules change. But it would require an extra game and it would cap growth at 16.

Oklahoma's situation is that they have to move either with OSU or Texas to keep things workable for their scheduling. If the Big 10 waffles on Kansas and Oklahoma and the impetus for taking OSU is no longer there, Oklahoma and Texas makes the most sense in a move to 16.

The SEC has standing rules against partial members. I don't think they revisit that unless somebody like a Vanderbilt who is part of us wants to look at an option like that. I don't think any outside school, especially Texas, would get any consideration as a partial. It would simply create a precedent that we wouldn't want to permit. What happens then if Florida or Alabama want the same deal? So that is not only unlikely, I consider it to be impossible.

The biggest reason to push for just Texas and Oklahoma is that if you did move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West then the overwhelming reasons for keeping permanent rivals is gone.

Then with a 9 game conference schedule you play every member school at least every 4 years. That way no rules changes are needed which are dependent upon an uncooperative PAC and if we land Texas and Oklahoma an uncooperative Big 10.

Now if we ask for division-less scheduling options prior to expansion of any kind we might well get 3 of the five conferences to agree, but you would still need a 4th and neither the PAC nor Big 12 will vote for that. The PAC because they would know that going that direction would enable the SEC, B1G or ACC to grow further thereby distancing the PAC in revenue even more. And the Big 12 would vote against it because their schools not named Texas or Oklahoma would know that their conference was about to be raided leaving them with an unsure future.

So the most reliable and stable move forward is expansion to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma and if Texas won't comply, then Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

But as to ATU's proposed 4 I would be very happy with that kind of move because of what it would lock us into long term. Where I would have concerns would be over scheduling.

As far as the recreation of another form of the Big 12 in its aftermath, I would say that it shouldn't concern us and that ESPN would be the best judge of its potential worth inasmuch as they would already have the premium properties between the SEC and ACC with two networks already on their hands in a changing dynamic. The AAC will never be very viable for a T3 network and I don't see a new Big 12 with raids on the AAC being much better in that regard.

Where they would have value to ESPN would be in T2 rights. There would be some great games for those slots, and a significant number of them at that.

What current schools in the B12 have lobbied in the past for SEC membership? I am not referencing prior offers to UT and OU. Rather, schools that have sought or petitioned the SEC for membership, mostly privately of course.

West Virginia has tried in the past. But they have tried with the ACC multiple times. I've also heard about overtures from Kansas State, and they have no problem scheduling games with SEC teams. Unlike KU, they don't appear to have a grudge with Mizzou and other SEC schools.

Iowa State sounded bitter with the last B12 departures, and expressed no interest in scheduling with the SEC.

Kansas is not collecting favors from the SEC by showing their rectal dispenser to Mizzou and beyond. Maybe they are playing Texas--lite pettiness?

TCU would hop anywhere feasible if it's viewed as upward mobility. Baylor is a UT latch-on, though Texas would dump Baylor when convenient for potential moving. TTU is a geographic outlier, and is UT-dependent if looking eastward for power class expansion.

Oklahoma State is OU-dependent when it comes to realighnment. They echo basically what OU says. Doesn't sound as if they have made independent initiatives.

OU sounds like the antebellum, aging former debutante, resting on her fainting couch keeping gentlemen callers waiting---"maybe I will, maybe I won't".

Texas is about power, control, greed, loyalty to oneself, and feeling superior---organizationally sociopathic.

Texas A&M and Mizzou were the real good ones, institutionally and attitudinally speaking, picked off early. And Texas A&M really, really wanted in the SEC. Gotta appreciate that.

(10-05-2018 07:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  What current schools in the B12 have lobbied in the past for SEC membership? I am not referencing prior offers to UT and OU. Rather, schools that have sought or petitioned the SEC for membership, mostly privately of course.

West Virginia has tried in the past. But they have tried with the ACC multiple times. I've also heard about overtures from Kansas State, and they have no problem scheduling games with SEC teams. Unlike KU, they don't appear to have a grudge with Mizzou and other SEC schools.

Iowa State sounded bitter with the last B12 departures, and expressed no interest in scheduling with the SEC.

Kansas is not collecting favors from the SEC by showing their rectal dispenser to Mizzou and beyond. Maybe they are playing Texas--lite pettiness?

TCU would hop anywhere feasible if it's viewed as upward mobility. Baylor is a UT latch-on, though Texas would dump Baylor when convenient for potential moving. TTU is a geographic outlier, and is UT-dependent if looking eastward for power class expansion.

Oklahoma State is OU-dependent when it comes to realighnment. They echo basically what OU says. Doesn't sound as if they have made independent initiatives.

OU sounds like the antebellum, aging former debutante, resting on her fainting couch keeping gentlemen callers waiting---"maybe I will, maybe I won't".

Texas is about power, control, greed, loyalty to oneself, and feeling superior---organizationally sociopathic.

Texas A&M and Mizzou were the real good ones, institutionally and attitudinally speaking, picked off early. And Texas A&M really, really wanted in the SEC. Gotta appreciate that.

Oklahoma has. It's just that they wanted OSU at a time when we only wanted two and already had A&M.

I've never heard any serious discussion about Kansas State, ever.

What we have gong for us is that we don't have to expand. The Big 10's situation is a bit more needy. Since cable footprint payouts are on the way out they have a great need for content. What they don't have a great need of is Oklahoma State, and really not much of one for Kansas.

It will be interesting. The issue is if we have to take OU and OSU the pressure on Texas to ask in increases dramatically. Then the only remaining issue would be Tech or Kansas.

(10-05-2018 12:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As far as the recreation of another form of the Big 12 in its aftermath, I would say that it shouldn't concern us and that ESPN would be the best judge of its potential worth inasmuch as they would already have the premium properties between the SEC and ACC with two networks already on their hands in a changing dynamic. The AAC will never be very viable for a T3 network and I don't see a new Big 12 with raids on the AAC being much better in that regard.

Where they would have value to ESPN would be in T2 rights. There would be some great games for those slots, and a significant number of them at that.

It doesn't concern us, no, but it could factor into ESPN's overall strategy.

While a T3 network for that league wouldn't fetch any serious money, I wouldn't be shocked if they pulled down more than the PAC. The PAC's distribution/viewership is so low that it's creating financial issues.

If ESPN bought into a network for that conference and in so doing forced the PAC to make changes in their approach in order to keep pace then some broader goals could be met.

I do agree that the T2 content for a league like that would be good for ESPN while T1 content wouldn't mean much. But that might be why the sneaky approach could work. If you stuck a ton of solid games on this leftover league's network while reserving a handful for filler content when the other leagues aren't being broadcast then I could see a fair number of fans being interested in that.

The overall market size would be comparable to the PAC. With ESPN's backing then I could see better distribution. The overall viewership wouldn't be too dissimilar, I don't think.

Now, the T1 and T2 contract value wouldn't be in the same ballpark as the PAC, but if a T3 network with leftover content can fetch more cash than the PAC Network could? At that point, either the PAC sells out to ESPN for the distribution power or perhaps the B1G raids them.