(06-29-2019 07:29 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get it’s business but the only number the networks care about is the number of eyeballs you can reach which, being the case, one of the biggest in CFB (the East Coast) is clearly the bigger market than the Prairie. The SEC can’t make the L10’s foot print any bigger or deeper, it’s maxed out as is. The ACC is the opposite where they have almost nowhere to go but up if their content is strengthened by an alliance with us.

However I do agree both are minnows compared to the mega deal a SEC/B1G deal would create.

My concern there is that half is us are already tied to the ACC and those games are important and create scheduling issues for doing other alliances.

There’s no similar tie to the B1G and maybe the whole north vs south dynamic would get folks to tune in, but I can’t help but wonder how much people would care about any match up that wasn’t the two of us lucky enough to draw Ohio State or Michigan

Everyone in the industry knows North vs South sells even if it i tiddly winks. Kentucky/Indiana, Missouri/Illinois, Michigan State/Auburn, Ohio State/Alabama, Michigan/Florida, Wisconsin/LSU, Vanderbilt/Northwestern, Penn State/Georgia, Texas A&M/Nebraska, Ole Miss/Purdue, Miss State/Rutgers, Arkansas/Minnesota, Iowa/Tennessee, South Carolina/Maryland. That's a massive amount of eyes from the 2 conferences that tune in the best. What's more since the Big 10 is considering not playing all of their conference games in the last 9 weeks of the season they could be spread out to maintain the interest throughout the season. Then other than the CFP the bowl games of the SEC & Big 10 could be played against the other 3 conferences which is even better for the public perception of both conferences.

Folks think I'm down on the ACC, I'm not. I'm just down on their lousy numbers. The SEC averages 75,000 in attendance, the Big 10 66,000 and there are only 2 ACC schools that can beat those 2 conference averages, Clemson and Florida State. Virginia Tech was 3rd at 62,000. That's Miss State and Ole Miss level of attendance. And ACC crowds don't travel other than Clemson, F.S.U., and Va Tech. So there's that angle to consider as well. At least the Big 12 travels better. But the Big 10 would show up in droves.

Footprint wise and content wise the SEC would be massively better off to move to 20 with these 6 schools: Clemson, Florida State, Oklahoma, and Texas for content, and N.C. State and Virginia Tech for footprint. That should be our ideal pairing moving forward. Let the Big 10 add six of their own: North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame, Duke, Colorado, Kansas.

Now when you pair up those 40 schools annually you have something. And if the SEC and Big 10 had the scheduling partnership the revenue would make all of those moves much more likely.

We need a healthy Big 10. The Big 10 defines the SEC as much as the SEC defines the Big 10. The Rose Bowl is dying as a meaningful game unless it's part of the CFP. The Sugar Bowl between the Big 10 runner up and the SEC runner up would be massive when not involved in the CFP.

That’s a good point, and there’s no denying a SEC/B1G alliance would be such a tremendous concentration of cash and ratings that it would create a defacto new division of college sports.

(06-27-2019 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 03:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I get the spitballing as even bad ideas could lead to actual plans. But seeing as how Texas won't do anything without consulting ESPN first (LHN), I think both the SEC and ACC will be well informed of which way the Longhorns lean and what kind of concessions they are looking for.

True, but knowing where Oklahoma stands, and Kansas, might still be quite informative. Texas won't make any shifts away from ESPN until after 2031. Oklahoma and Kansas are free after 2025.

Assuming its either/or and not both/and, does the earlier availability of OK/Kansas provide extra value, however incremental, that might mean that the SEC springs for OK/Kansas sooner vs. taking Texas later?

(07-01-2019 03:34 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 03:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I get the spitballing as even bad ideas could lead to actual plans. But seeing as how Texas won't do anything without consulting ESPN first (LHN), I think both the SEC and ACC will be well informed of which way the Longhorns lean and what kind of concessions they are looking for.

True, but knowing where Oklahoma stands, and Kansas, might still be quite informative. Texas won't make any shifts away from ESPN until after 2031. Oklahoma and Kansas are free after 2025.

Assuming its either/or and not both/and, does the earlier availability of OK/Kansas provide extra value, however incremental, that might mean that the SEC springs for OK/Kansas sooner vs. taking Texas later?

Sure. Oklahoma adds enough value that even if Texas joined the Big 10 the would never catch us in total revenue. Kansas would be a football negative, but would boost our Hoops cred by quite a bit.

And the bonus is this, if the SEC landed Kansas and Oklahoma how much pressure would that then put on Texas to join? The SEC would hold Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. If the Longhorn fans ever wanted a relevant schedule again, where else could they go to find one?

(07-01-2019 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 03:34 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 03:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I get the spitballing as even bad ideas could lead to actual plans. But seeing as how Texas won't do anything without consulting ESPN first (LHN), I think both the SEC and ACC will be well informed of which way the Longhorns lean and what kind of concessions they are looking for.

True, but knowing where Oklahoma stands, and Kansas, might still be quite informative. Texas won't make any shifts away from ESPN until after 2031. Oklahoma and Kansas are free after 2025.

Assuming its either/or and not both/and, does the earlier availability of OK/Kansas provide extra value, however incremental, that might mean that the SEC springs for OK/Kansas sooner vs. taking Texas later?

Sure. Oklahoma adds enough value that even if Texas joined the Big 10 the would never catch us in total revenue. Kansas would be a football negative, but would boost our Hoops cred by quite a bit.

And the bonus is this, if the SEC landed Kansas and Oklahoma how much pressure would that then put on Texas to join? The SEC would hold Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. If the Longhorn fans ever wanted a relevant schedule again, where else could they go to find one?

Follow up: Does that mean that we are really looking at 2-3 smaller expansion moves over the next decade to 20 years versus one larger seismic shift? I.e:

2025: SEC takes OK/Kansas and the Big 12 backfills but stays together.
2031: Texas makes its move, potential end of the Big 12.
2036: ACC grant of right ends and the Big 10 can finally get its targets.

Here is my thinking: If the SEC takes OK/Kansas and Texas can't go to the Big 10 yet, then the Big 10 has no reason to try to expand with any other Big 12 property (i.e, no reason to take say an Iowa State). That means that the leftover Big 12 schools would actually have reason to stay together short term unless someone like the PAC came swooping in, but even a Big 12 minus OK/Kansas +2 backfills, if Texas was still in it, might make more money than a PAC could offer. Or maybe at that point the Arizona/State to the Big 12 actually happens? Either way an SEC grab of OK/Kansas might not be as seismic as it seems.

Then in 2031, if Texas makes its decision, then a few more pieces on the board can move around. Texas and Tech to the SEC for 18. Or Texas and ? to the Big 10 (Stanford?). That would doom the Big 12, at least we know it (Big 12 took backfill with AAC teams and MWC teams, a conference with Kansas State, OK State, Iowa State, TCU, Baylor, WVU (unless they fled to the ACC), and say BYU, Colorado State, and a few others, would actually be a decent conference, at the very least worth more than the AAC itself).

At that point, the Big 10 is either super far behind or has gathered in some of the PAC schools. But in 2036 they can get some of their real targets in the ACC. The SEC could still take 2 more (or 6 more to go to 24).

Or is there a domino effect that makes all these moves happen close to simultaneously?

(07-02-2019 02:43 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 04:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 03:34 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 04:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 03:36 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I get the spitballing as even bad ideas could lead to actual plans. But seeing as how Texas won't do anything without consulting ESPN first (LHN), I think both the SEC and ACC will be well informed of which way the Longhorns lean and what kind of concessions they are looking for.

True, but knowing where Oklahoma stands, and Kansas, might still be quite informative. Texas won't make any shifts away from ESPN until after 2031. Oklahoma and Kansas are free after 2025.

Assuming its either/or and not both/and, does the earlier availability of OK/Kansas provide extra value, however incremental, that might mean that the SEC springs for OK/Kansas sooner vs. taking Texas later?

Sure. Oklahoma adds enough value that even if Texas joined the Big 10 the would never catch us in total revenue. Kansas would be a football negative, but would boost our Hoops cred by quite a bit.

And the bonus is this, if the SEC landed Kansas and Oklahoma how much pressure would that then put on Texas to join? The SEC would hold Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. If the Longhorn fans ever wanted a relevant schedule again, where else could they go to find one?

Follow up: Does that mean that we are really looking at 2-3 smaller expansion moves over the next decade to 20 years versus one larger seismic shift? I.e:

2025: SEC takes OK/Kansas and the Big 12 backfills but stays together.
2031: Texas makes its move, potential end of the Big 12.
2036: ACC grant of right ends and the Big 10 can finally get its targets.

Here is my thinking: If the SEC takes OK/Kansas and Texas can't go to the Big 10 yet, then the Big 10 has no reason to try to expand with any other Big 12 property (i.e, no reason to take say an Iowa State). That means that the leftover Big 12 schools would actually have reason to stay together short term unless someone like the PAC came swooping in, but even a Big 12 minus OK/Kansas +2 backfills, if Texas was still in it, might make more money than a PAC could offer. Or maybe at that point the Arizona/State to the Big 12 actually happens? Either way an SEC grab of OK/Kansas might not be as seismic as it seems.

Then in 2031, if Texas makes its decision, then a few more pieces on the board can move around. Texas and Tech to the SEC for 18. Or Texas and ? to the Big 10 (Stanford?). That would doom the Big 12, at least we know it (Big 12 took backfill with AAC teams and MWC teams, a conference with Kansas State, OK State, Iowa State, TCU, Baylor, WVU (unless they fled to the ACC), and say BYU, Colorado State, and a few others, would actually be a decent conference, at the very least worth more than the AAC itself).

At that point, the Big 10 is either super far behind or has gathered in some of the PAC schools. But in 2036 they can get some of their real targets in the ACC. The SEC could still take 2 more (or 6 more to go to 24).

Or is there a domino effect that makes all these moves happen close to simultaneously?

The smooth transitions of the departing schools has always been mingled with the panic of filling slots and the helter skelter self promotion of teams seeking a landing place which has resulted in less than well thought out moves.

If OU and KU move to the SEC in 2025 after announcing in 2023 I would suspect that what would ensue would be a year of Texas trying to figure out how to keep what they have followed by a overtures seeking a home for both Texas and Tech whether that would be in the SEC (more likely due to familiar foes), the PAC (if Texas wants to save Baylor and T.C.U. along with Tech) or the Big 10.

I think by 2024 Texas will have made their decision and the implosion of the Big 12 or AAC ensues. Those left behind in the Big 12 may try to capitalize on their brand and simply reload with the best schools from the AAC.

What's hard to figure is what happens in the ACC. True they are bound until 2037, but 12 schools wanting to leave could dissolve the conference.

Let them look at the prospect of being behind the SEC and Big 10 by more than 200 million per decade in revenue (20 million a year or more per school) and you are going to have a lot of football first schools extremely concerned about their futures. If say the pay for play or just for image happens and a few of the privates also want out but not to move to another P conference but to a basketball first, or to create a new conference, then movement out of the ACC becomes possible as well. And yes I could see the Big 10 pouncing on that situation, but so too could the SEC.

IMO the revenue gap opens up the PAC to the same kind of situation with regard to the Big 10.