(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC is determined to get Oklahoma then the deal they offer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC is determined to get Oklahoma then the deal they offer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC is determined to get Oklahoma then the deal they offer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them. The SEC teams that are already valuable don't get to play more games for TV when you add more teams to the conference. CBS is paying way too little for its contract given current values, but they were right to argue that their same number of games didn't become more valuable when the SEC added more teams.

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC is determined to get Oklahoma then the deal they offer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

There are only 3 schools in the nation whose economic impact on their markets is valued at 1 Billion dollars or more. Ohio State, Texas, and Oklahoma. The economic impact of Oklahoma State is around 285 million. That of Texas Tech is just slightly less than that of OSU at 246 million.

Even combined each pair raises the total economic impact of the SEC schools which has the highest as a conference in the nation by nearly 2 billion over the Big 10.

So there's that.

Then there's the revenue they actually earn which is what you are referring to. Texas will be #1 for this year most likely. Oklahoma should be around 6th or so. Both increase the gross total revenue average of the SEC. Even with OSU and TTU they still increase that average by a little, just not nearly as much as Texas and OU by themselves. So if for no other reason than to keep them away from the Big 10 the SEC might well consider that move.

Then there is the ad revenue rate for the Texas/Oklahoma market which is almost 33 million combined. Should the SEC offer the foursome that would give the SEC all 5 major state schools within that region and give the SEC the lock on the top advertising rate for those 33 million and a potential of 4 to 5 games per week for most of the season in a market that represents for those 4 additions 70% of the total viewers in that 33 million strong market is another big damned money maker.

Finally is the T1 value added for content on content games. Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Texas A&M, L.S.U., Tennessee, and regional games of T2 value against Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech add value in content for ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.

It's a no brainer. And to say otherwise is to be way out of touch with the various ways that foursome locks down everything the SEC could want to the west and maximizes the value of Missouri and A&M at the same time.

In essence there are 2 conferences that give the highest % of actual viewers vs the total population, the SEC and the Big 12. Put the best of the Big 12 in the SEC and it's a Bonanza. And one that would be untouchable by the rest of the nation. The Big 10 could add Notre Dame, Virginia and North Carolina and not catch up in the economic impact or total revenue numbers.

It's very doable.

In fact the biggest obstacle to such an arrangement wouldn't be the Big 10, it would be the networks fearful of the leverage that such a conference would wield. And it would be contrary to their purpose for pushing A&M to the SEC. What they wanted to do was to enhance several conferences by connecting them to the rabid Texas/Oklahoma market.

That's why I think the SEC will land 1 of those 2 top brands, but won't be financially encouraged by the networks to seek both. Who tags along will depend on whether we get OU or Texas, and just how many conferences might be involved in taking Big 12 schools. Kansas is merely the most profitable traveling companion if you can't have both.

To put it another way the addition of Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC would give the SEC 7 of the top 10 most valuable athletic departments in the nation, and 9 of the top 15. Nobody else could even come close.

(01-16-2019 10:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them. The SEC teams that are already valuable don't get to play more games for TV when you add more teams to the conference. CBS is paying way too little for its contract given current values, but they were right to argue that their same number of games didn't become more valuable when the SEC added more teams.

You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Then Wedge there is the value that the programs yield extraneous to TV. It's massive between those 4 schools there is a regional licensing right base of nearly 3 billion. Then there is the SECN in Mexico. Texas games add viewers to those 22 stations that carry the product South of the border.

In business there is instant profit to be considered and then there is the synergy between two strong product lines that multiplies that value.

You're off base on this. Furthermore the baseball and basketball add as well as does women's softball which is a revenue sport at various schools in the SEC and Big 12.

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 06:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC is determined to get Oklahoma then the deal they offer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

In the current model, I think you are right that OU/OkSt would be basically revenue neutral.

In a pay per eyeball or subscription model, OU would be high value.

why would Tex share money from Mexico markets with another conf
it would also explain LHN not becoming qusia B-12N
B-12 not going anywhere

(01-17-2019 01:22 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  why would Tex share money from Mexico markets with another conf
it would also explain LHN not becoming qusia B-12N
B-12 not going anywhere

The SECN is already in 22 cities in Mexico. Both the LHN and SECN are ESPN products.

(01-16-2019 06:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC is determined to get Oklahoma then the deal they offer is Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. It's the deal that the Big Ten can't make make and it opens the possibility to keep both of their rivalries, Bedlam and the RRR, the later becoming OOC if both parties want to maintain the game. The SEC only has 8 conference games so that would also give the Sooners more OOC flexibility than the Big Ten.

If the SEC ballooned to 16 teams and kept an 8 game schedule that would mean they’d play their cross division rival and never see another team in the East. So that’s not going to happen. Of course if there were no divisions that’s a different story, but we know how you feel about that...

Quote:Divisionless conferences would be prone to chaos and 3 and 4 way ties. No one wants that mess.

Golly, and to think about all those years before divisions where New Years Day contract bowls went vacant due to ties.

One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

(01-16-2019 10:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 07:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the goal is to simply collect as many big-name football programs as possible, then sure, add the Sooners.

But if the goal is to increase the per-school revenue of SEC members, then, because the SEC's per-school media value is already so high, only Texas could increase that per-school revenue for them.

Adding OU is nice if you're collecting football programs, and maybe going into North Carolina and Virginia is cool if you're playing Risk and just trying to capture new states on the map, but teams other than the Horns wouldn't increase the SEC's per-school revenue. (Notre Dame would as well, but ND to the SEC is so absurd that it's outside the realm of even wild speculation.)

Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them.

Oklahoma is *that* valuable. They are a true dyed-in-wool blue blood.

SEC would snap up them and OKST in a millisecond if it was on the table.

so was Nebraksas

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 08:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually you are wrong here Wedge. Texas or Oklahoma add significant revenue to the SEC. Both add enough to bring a tag along, but in both cases the profit is then negligible. In the case of UT/TTU it's slightly more because Texas's starting value is higher. Kansas doesn't stand on their own but it is more profitable as a pairing with either Texas or Oklahoma than a 2nd state school would be, and better than any other Big 12 school.

No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them. The SEC teams that are already valuable don't get to play more games for TV when you add more teams to the conference. CBS is paying way too little for its contract given current values, but they were right to argue that their same number of games didn't become more valuable when the SEC added more teams.

You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Then Wedge there is the value that the programs yield extraneous to TV. It's massive between those 4 schools there is a regional licensing right base of nearly 3 billion. Then there is the SECN in Mexico. Texas games add viewers to those 22 stations that carry the product South of the border.

In business there is instant profit to be considered and then there is the synergy between two strong product lines that multiplies that value.

You're off base on this. Furthermore the baseball and basketball add as well as does women's softball which is a revenue sport at various schools in the SEC and Big 12.

Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

(01-17-2019 09:34 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so was Nebraksas

IMO, the fate of Nebraska is a very cautionary tale that Oklahoma will consider if bids from the B1G, PAC, or SEC are ever on the line. Nebraska's profile has diminished dramatically since joining the B1G, it was much higher in the Big 12.

Oklahoma and Texas must realize that in the Big 12, they are the whole ball game. They have more power *relative* to their conference mates than do any of the other blue bloods, schools like Alabama and Ohio State included.

That's worth something.

There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

actually right before the split, that's when the conference was really cooking. Georgetown was doing great- earning 2,3,3,6 seeds in the 4 years prior to the split. USF made the tourney in 2012, the year before the split. St John's had made the tourney in 2011, then had Lavin's cancer year which was a total write off year... Providence and Seton Hall in 2012 and 2011 hired Cooley and Willard- who are why they're where they are- not the split- those programs were going to pop regardless.

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

We were with them from the inception of the SEC Bullet! It wasn't bad for us then because it built us into what we are. It would be a clarifying and redefining moment to have our divisions become what was the Old SEC in the East and an enhanced version of the SWC in the West.

You can't look at the future with an old brain. Conferences moving forward will not only be part of the playoff structure, but also part of a rights leveraging platform. If your division was who you always wanted to, or always did, play and the Conference Championship game is essentially the equivalent of the present Sugar Bowl you have lost nothing but the duplicated overhead expenses of two conference offices, and gained leverage, a better core schedule of schools who add value and travel well, and which are more regional to boot.

(01-17-2019 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

We were with them from the inception of the SEC Bullet! It wasn't bad for us then because it built us into what we are. It would be a clarifying and redefining moment to have our divisions become what was the Old SEC in the East and an enhanced version of the SWC in the West.

You can't look at the future with an old brain. Conferences moving forward will not only be part of the playoff structure, but also part of a rights leveraging platform. If your division was who you always wanted to, or always did, play and the Conference Championship game is essentially the equivalent of the present Sugar Bowl you have lost nothing but the duplicated overhead expenses of two conference offices, and gained leverage, a better core schedule of schools who add value and travel well, and which are more regional to boot.

Conferences of 20+ worked when the situation was favorable. I've been arguing that the circumstances favor large again for some time.

(01-17-2019 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  No way that adding OU and OkSt would increase the SEC's per-school media value. I'm assuming that the SEC's true media value is at or slightly above the Big Ten's (and that the SEC is underpaid today), and the Big Ten's ESPN and Fox deals are a combined $31.4 million per school per year, and about $40 million including BTN.

An OU/Ok St package doesn't add $80 million/year in TV value. Texas might add close to $80 million/year by itself, so you could add any one tag-along and still make money there. The big money would be in adding UT and OU with no tag alongs, but that is very unlikely for political reasons.

You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them. The SEC teams that are already valuable don't get to play more games for TV when you add more teams to the conference. CBS is paying way too little for its contract given current values, but they were right to argue that their same number of games didn't become more valuable when the SEC added more teams.

You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Then Wedge there is the value that the programs yield extraneous to TV. It's massive between those 4 schools there is a regional licensing right base of nearly 3 billion. Then there is the SECN in Mexico. Texas games add viewers to those 22 stations that carry the product South of the border.

In business there is instant profit to be considered and then there is the synergy between two strong product lines that multiplies that value.

You're off base on this. Furthermore the baseball and basketball add as well as does women's softball which is a revenue sport at various schools in the SEC and Big 12.

Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

(01-17-2019 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

1. Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989.
2. If conferences go divisionless, or should the playoffs expand, nothing substantive has changed in the way of odds. The SEC West would essentially be the SWC enhanced and the SEC East would be the old core SEC. The two champs meeting in the CCG is essentially the old Sugar Bowl and is your quarter final round of the playoffs.
3. It's not about parity dummy, it's about revenue.
4. If the SEC grows, so too will the Big 10 and for the same reasons. Football first schools in the PAC and ACC would have a lot of thinking to do.