Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,276
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 199
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #481
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 05:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 04:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 07:03 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  Those schools have been in the SEC for years ....I cant imagine paying Kansas or Texas Tech the same as Alabama


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I assume you are talking about AllTideUP's plan. Tech is only profitable to the SEC if they are paired with Texas and then they diminish the overall profit that Texas adds, but it is workable. Kansas adds value to one of our deficit areas and are AAU and if paired with Oklahoma the tandem would still add profit, just not as much as Oklahoma alone, but it has some other advantages. One of those is it restores the rivalry for Missouri in addition to upgrading the SEC's hoop profile and providing a natural rival for Kentucky most years.

Obviously the ideal is Texas and Oklahoma as that would add over 4.5 million per school in payouts to the SEC's members. But UT/TTU or OU/KU would likely add about 2.5 million per school. But that's how you can even talk about it. On their own they don't get a look.

Oklahoma seems to be the linchpin. They have the most motivation to move. If they do then Texas might follow.

But as for the other schools, if we move to a 10 game conference schedule then we could add a few extra schools and I think it would alter the economics a little bit.

20 teams playing 10 games would be 100 conference football games. Everything is under the same roof.

16 teams playing 8 games would be 64. If you move to 9 games then it's 72. Take those teams and go to 10 and it's 80.

Not every game is equally valuable obviously, but seems like we have a lot to gain in terms of inventory even if we added a small number of lesser brands.

Then the question becomes: does Oklahoma give up rivalries for money? The only SEC schools that Oklahoma has any history with are Missouri and to a much lesser extent, Texas A&M.
Oklahoma has a somewhat unique problem re: rivalry games. The Sooners have been so dominant in their own conference that they have seldom been challenged by any of their traditional rivals. They have a 90-18-7 record against Oklahoma State and their closest challenger, Nebraska (45-38-3) ran off to the B1G.
If Oklahoma takes the SEC's money the chance of continuing their gaudy won-loss record sinks like a stone.

I don’t see where Oklahoma would have to give up their rivalries to go to the SEC. if they go to the SEC, they are going to be going with one of their top 2 current rivals: Texas or Oklahoma St.

If the SEC stays at 8 conference games there’s plenty of room to keep their other on the OOC schedule.

Iowa St and the Kansas schools may be long time conference mates but they aren’t rivals and won’t be missed.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2021 07:30 AM by Fighting Muskie.)
01-14-2021 07:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,421
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #482
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 07:26 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 05:44 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 04:47 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 07:03 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  Those schools have been in the SEC for years ....I cant imagine paying Kansas or Texas Tech the same as Alabama


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I assume you are talking about AllTideUP's plan. Tech is only profitable to the SEC if they are paired with Texas and then they diminish the overall profit that Texas adds, but it is workable. Kansas adds value to one of our deficit areas and are AAU and if paired with Oklahoma the tandem would still add profit, just not as much as Oklahoma alone, but it has some other advantages. One of those is it restores the rivalry for Missouri in addition to upgrading the SEC's hoop profile and providing a natural rival for Kentucky most years.

Obviously the ideal is Texas and Oklahoma as that would add over 4.5 million per school in payouts to the SEC's members. But UT/TTU or OU/KU would likely add about 2.5 million per school. But that's how you can even talk about it. On their own they don't get a look.

Oklahoma seems to be the linchpin. They have the most motivation to move. If they do then Texas might follow.

But as for the other schools, if we move to a 10 game conference schedule then we could add a few extra schools and I think it would alter the economics a little bit.

20 teams playing 10 games would be 100 conference football games. Everything is under the same roof.

16 teams playing 8 games would be 64. If you move to 9 games then it's 72. Take those teams and go to 10 and it's 80.

Not every game is equally valuable obviously, but seems like we have a lot to gain in terms of inventory even if we added a small number of lesser brands.

Then the question becomes: does Oklahoma give up rivalries for money? The only SEC schools that Oklahoma has any history with are Missouri and to a much lesser extent, Texas A&M.
Oklahoma has a somewhat unique problem re: rivalry games. The Sooners have been so dominant in their own conference that they have seldom been challenged by any of their traditional rivals. They have a 90-18-7 record against Oklahoma State and their closest challenger, Nebraska (45-38-3) ran off to the B1G.
If Oklahoma takes the SEC's money the chance of continuing their gaudy won-loss record sinks like a stone.

I don’t see where Oklahoma would have to give up their rivalries to go to the SEC. if they go to the SEC, they are going to be going with one of their top 2 current rivals: Texas or Oklahoma St.

If the SEC stays at 8 conference games there’s plenty of room to keep their other on the OOC schedule.

Iowa St and the Kansas schools may be long time conference mates but they aren’t rivals and won’t be missed.

That’s true given an 8-game schedule. I think the SEC (and any other power conference) would do a 9 or even 10-game conference schedule with 16 schools.
01-14-2021 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,153
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1692
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #483
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 04:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 04:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 01:17 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  FWIW, I played with a divisional split of the two groups. I had a very hard time coming up with any reasonable scenario that splits the Alabamian programs, as that split complicated many other areas. Therefore, I had to keep the two together, then pair LSU with them. Georgia and Georgia Tech together is a no-brainer, especially when you also can pair GT with Vanderbilt and Tennessee. Putting all the former B8 and SWC programs together is also another obvious idea. None of the original SEC members would end up in a division with former SWC and B8 programs, which is about as fair as I could come up with.

On the Big Ten, I had connect the plains programs with one of the recruiting areas, so I paired Northwestern with Nebraska and Oklahoma. The Illini is paired with the upper lakes programs. Each division is to have at least two historical programs but that proved to be nearly impossible: separating the Michigans and Wisconsin/Minnesota make no sense, so I had to put the two pairs together, thus necessarily split Michigan and Ohio State. Therefore, not only did I split Michigan/Ohio State but also the Illinois programs and ND kept away from the Michigans and Indiana public schools.

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, Michigan, Illinois
Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Notre Dame, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia

Texas Tech, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Mississippi, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Alabama, Auburn
Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, Georgia Tech, Tennessee
Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia Tech

In the past when a group got too big to manage, it divided, stronger entities were formed and the lesser programs were left with the original structure and then faded away. Such was the case with the old Southern Conference and would be with any number of teams over 16.....heck that number might actually be 14, which is why school Presidents are reluctant to expand.

Perhaps the key would be to start with a playoff number (say 8 teams) and work on forming conferences of 8 or so teams rather than 16, 18, 20 or 24.
Each champion would enter the tournament. Seven game round robin conference schedules would leave plenty of room for OOC rivalries without overloading the schedule.

If 8 were not feasible in some markets, the number of schools per conference could actually go as high as 10/11 as long as the conference was willing to give up scheduling flexibility. (The PAC could actually stay in tact as an 11 team conference if necessary, but in doing so making it more difficult for any individual school to become champion and participating in the playoff).

Smaller compact conferences would be easier for fans and schools because they would be more regional and better for the media giants that paid the bills as the conferences would have less power and therefore easier to control.

When money didn't keep them together, that was true.

But obviously no one is moving backwards to 8 team leagues or the like. The natural progression is consolidation of money and power...for better or for worse.

When leagues get too big, they break up. As the Pac's predecessor, the MVC, the Southern Conference (when they lost the SEC schools and when they lost the ACC schools), the Big East, the MWC. In fact, only the Big 10 among the P5 isn't a product of a breakup.

A hundred years ago, absolutely.

How many of those leagues had a monetary reason to stay aligned? How many of those leagues were generating billions of dollars in media revenue?

Even the most recent addition to that list, the Mountain West, broke away in order to re-emphasize the original members of the WAC. Nobody was paying that league a ton of money to operate at 16. They had no motivation to endure structural issues.

Even in the case of the MWC, what happened? A handful of teams ascended to the upper echelon and most of those schools are right back in the same conference.

MWC broke up specifically over money. Rivalries were a trigger, but it was absolutely about money as well as coverage and the disastrous WAC TV program. The disintegration of the SWC was also about money.

There is more than one way (ESPN) to make money. Playing low drawing schools like Rice, SMU, TCU (Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland?) hurts the home gate. And the nearby road trips hurt the home gate. If you can see your team staying in Houston or Dallas, why drive to Austin or College Station?
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2021 01:35 PM by bullet.)
01-14-2021 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,153
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1692
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #484
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-13-2021 08:12 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 07:03 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  Those schools have been in the SEC for years ....I cant imagine paying Kansas or Texas Tech the same as Alabama


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is the beauty, though, of the SEC schools' relationship with each other. We are the only conference where everyone gets a full share from day one and there is no penalty for leaving the conference. It is as close to a gentleman's agreement as you get these days because no one wants to leave, and that is why the gatekeeper is so hard to bypass for new additions. I'm sure they have fiery disagreements at times, but the SEC does a great job of presenting a united front on items that matter.

Will that continue as schools like Florida, Georgia and A&M get less and less like Arkansas, Ole Miss and Mississippi State? The SEC schools were more homogenous before the massive growth of Florida and Georgia. The Big 10 schools are still pretty homogenous.
01-14-2021 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,153
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1692
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #485
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 04:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for out of conference, you have been drinking aggy koolaid.
Some of the future Texas opponents:
2021 Arkansas
2022 Alabama
2023 Alabama
2024 Michigan
2025 Ohio St.
2026 Ohio St.
2027 Michigan
2028 Georgia
2029 Georgia
2030 Florida
2031 Florida
2032 Arizona St.
2033 Arizona St.

I don't really get what your point is.

How many quality games does Texas have in Austin? I'm talking about rivalry games that the fans really show up for? Or games against perennial powers that might not inspire acrimony, but they certainly get the fans fired up? The non-conference games are great, but you can't play a ton of them every single year.

The Oklahoma game is in Dallas where it should be, but the Austin slate is not what they were used to for several years.

When Del Conte was interviewed last year, he certainly seemed to be the more eager to play A&M again. I can understand why because every team coming through Austin...and I'm talking about the conference slate here, the games that make up the bulk of the home schedule...is considered a middle or lower tier brand.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia

How many of those games fire up the average Texas fan?

You said Texas was concerned about not having A&M on the schedule.

No Texas fan would trade any of those games (except ASU in the '30s) for A&M.
You need to remember what we are talking about instead of changing the subject to something else.

And Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. do generate interest. Certainly more than Ole Miss or Mississippi St. Not as much as Alabama or LSU (who was on the 2019 and pre-covid 2020 schedule).
01-14-2021 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 60
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #486
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 01:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 04:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for out of conference, you have been drinking aggy koolaid.
Some of the future Texas opponents:
2021 Arkansas
2022 Alabama
2023 Alabama
2024 Michigan
2025 Ohio St.
2026 Ohio St.
2027 Michigan
2028 Georgia
2029 Georgia
2030 Florida
2031 Florida
2032 Arizona St.
2033 Arizona St.

I don't really get what your point is.

How many quality games does Texas have in Austin? I'm talking about rivalry games that the fans really show up for? Or games against perennial powers that might not inspire acrimony, but they certainly get the fans fired up? The non-conference games are great, but you can't play a ton of them every single year.

The Oklahoma game is in Dallas where it should be, but the Austin slate is not what they were used to for several years.

When Del Conte was interviewed last year, he certainly seemed to be the more eager to play A&M again. I can understand why because every team coming through Austin...and I'm talking about the conference slate here, the games that make up the bulk of the home schedule...is considered a middle or lower tier brand.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia

How many of those games fire up the average Texas fan?

You said Texas was concerned about not having A&M on the schedule.

No Texas fan would trade any of those games (except ASU in the '30s) for A&M.
You need to remember what we are talking about instead of changing the subject to something else.

And Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. do generate interest. Certainly more than Ole Miss or Mississippi St. Not as much as Alabama or LSU (who was on the 2019 and pre-covid 2020 schedule).

There's good and bad in every conference. You can't say the best team in the Big 12 is better than the worst in the SEC. Of course they are. But take Oklahoma and Texas out, which group will generate more interest, the Big 12 or the SEC? I'll go even further, the Big 12 or the likely SEC West?

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia

OR

Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Mississippi State?
01-14-2021 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,030
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 232
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #487
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
Ok, here's the original post...

(01-12-2021 04:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-11-2021 06:34 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I would prefer Texas and Oklahoma be in the same conference together and the Red River Rivalry remain a conference game. You can say they'd never cancel the game even if they weren't in the same conference but if I said in 2010 that Texas and Texas A&M would no longer play would you have believed me? What's stopping Texas from blackballing Oklahoma the way they blackballed A&M, especially if Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 before UT? Who needs Oklahoma/Texas more? The only way to guarantee they play is for them to play in the same conference.

I know it would be better financially for the Big 10 if OU/UT were in the B1G but geographically they fit better in the SEC and if they were there then Texas and Texas A&M would play again.

Texas may have blackballed A&M in the early days, but they've regretted it. You can tell they are the more eager to renew that series because their home schedule has suffered without it. A&M, for their part, no longer needs that game so they've decided to stick it to UT, it appears.

One day they will play again, maybe in the SEC at that, but I doubt Texas makes the same mistake twice.

If Oklahoma moved to the SEC then ironically, Texas would still need that game more. OU would have a nice complement of home games every year. Texas is the bigger money maker, but you can't make a habit of pissing off everyone you do business with. Eventually, it catches up with you.

Your response was this:

(01-13-2021 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody at UT thinks about A&M.
The schools do play in other sports where it is convenient.

And this:

(01-13-2021 08:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for out of conference, you have been drinking aggy koolaid.
Some of the future Texas opponents:
2021 Arkansas
2022 Alabama
2023 Alabama
2024 Michigan
2025 Ohio St.
2026 Ohio St.
2027 Michigan
2028 Georgia
2029 Georgia
2030 Florida
2031 Florida
2032 Arizona St.
2033 Arizona St.


(01-14-2021 04:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't really get what your point is.

How many quality games does Texas have in Austin? I'm talking about rivalry games that the fans really show up for? Or games against perennial powers that might not inspire acrimony, but they certainly get the fans fired up? The non-conference games are great, but you can't play a ton of them every single year.

The Oklahoma game is in Dallas where it should be, but the Austin slate is not what they were used to for several years.

When Del Conte was interviewed last year, he certainly seemed to be the more eager to play A&M again. I can understand why because every team coming through Austin...and I'm talking about the conference slate here, the games that make up the bulk of the home schedule...is considered a middle or lower tier brand.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia

How many of those games fire up the average Texas fan?


(01-14-2021 01:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  You said Texas was concerned about not having A&M on the schedule.

No Texas fan would trade any of those games (except ASU in the '30s) for A&M.
You need to remember what we are talking about instead of changing the subject to something else.

And Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. do generate interest. Certainly more than Ole Miss or Mississippi St. Not as much as Alabama or LSU (who was on the 2019 and pre-covid 2020 schedule).

Of course I remember what we are talking about. I'm the one who brought it up.

Texas wants A&M on the schedule and Del Conte has said as much. I don't really care about the UT bravado...it doesn't influence my thinking or perception. You can pretend it's just us talking...no one else will see it.

I said that the UT home schedule is lacking now that A&M is not on it. That is a true statement. You cannot tell me that adding A&M to the current slate would not automatically improve its value. The only game on the schedule that UT wouldn't give up in exchange is Oklahoma. A&M is a key rival or you folks wouldn't try to pretend you don't care. And you did say in an earlier post that no one at UT thinks about A&M so don't try to backtrack and pretend it's just about the non-conference schedule.

Everyone across the country knows that's a big game. You might as well be telling me that Alabama and Auburn don't care about playing each other. How many people used to show up on Thanksgiving for that game every year? You're going to sit there and tell me that the typical Longhorn fan gave up Thanksgiving Day most years to attend/watch a game of miniscule importance?

It's nice that you have quality non-conference games, but one cool home game every other year is not enough to really fire the fans up. Now maybe it's true that some of those conference games generate interest...I never said they didn't. Ole Miss and Mississippi State and others generate interest for Alabama fans or no one would bother paying for tickets, but those aren't our true rivals that people buy season ticket packages for.

I asked what fires the fans up. What really makes them want to buy season ticket packages so they can see that one special game? OU is obviously #1 on the list, but it's not in Austin and different rules apply. It's not a true home game with 100K people.

A&M on the home schedule on a regular basis would really help the feelings of the typical UT season ticket buyer. I'm sure they want to play Alabama and Georgia and Florida and Arkansas(wow, notice how many SEC schools are on that list, but that's a different topic), but if they had their wish then A&M would be on there too.
01-14-2021 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,030
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 232
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #488
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 01:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 04:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 04:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  In the past when a group got too big to manage, it divided, stronger entities were formed and the lesser programs were left with the original structure and then faded away. Such was the case with the old Southern Conference and would be with any number of teams over 16.....heck that number might actually be 14, which is why school Presidents are reluctant to expand.

Perhaps the key would be to start with a playoff number (say 8 teams) and work on forming conferences of 8 or so teams rather than 16, 18, 20 or 24.
Each champion would enter the tournament. Seven game round robin conference schedules would leave plenty of room for OOC rivalries without overloading the schedule.

If 8 were not feasible in some markets, the number of schools per conference could actually go as high as 10/11 as long as the conference was willing to give up scheduling flexibility. (The PAC could actually stay in tact as an 11 team conference if necessary, but in doing so making it more difficult for any individual school to become champion and participating in the playoff).

Smaller compact conferences would be easier for fans and schools because they would be more regional and better for the media giants that paid the bills as the conferences would have less power and therefore easier to control.

When money didn't keep them together, that was true.

But obviously no one is moving backwards to 8 team leagues or the like. The natural progression is consolidation of money and power...for better or for worse.

When leagues get too big, they break up. As the Pac's predecessor, the MVC, the Southern Conference (when they lost the SEC schools and when they lost the ACC schools), the Big East, the MWC. In fact, only the Big 10 among the P5 isn't a product of a breakup.

A hundred years ago, absolutely.

How many of those leagues had a monetary reason to stay aligned? How many of those leagues were generating billions of dollars in media revenue?

Even the most recent addition to that list, the Mountain West, broke away in order to re-emphasize the original members of the WAC. Nobody was paying that league a ton of money to operate at 16. They had no motivation to endure structural issues.

Even in the case of the MWC, what happened? A handful of teams ascended to the upper echelon and most of those schools are right back in the same conference.

MWC broke up specifically over money. Rivalries were a trigger, but it was absolutely about money as well as coverage and the disastrous WAC TV program. The disintegration of the SWC was also about money.

There is more than one way (ESPN) to make money. Playing low drawing schools like Rice, SMU, TCU (Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland?) hurts the home gate. And the nearby road trips hurt the home gate. If you can see your team staying in Houston or Dallas, why drive to Austin or College Station?

The key being not enough money.

Those leagues weren't generating money in proportion to their peers so realignment took hold. If those leagues had been generating a lot of revenue and been at the top of their peers then there's no reason for the culling to occur.
01-14-2021 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,153
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1692
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #489
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 03:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Ok, here's the original post...

(01-12-2021 04:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-11-2021 06:34 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I would prefer Texas and Oklahoma be in the same conference together and the Red River Rivalry remain a conference game. You can say they'd never cancel the game even if they weren't in the same conference but if I said in 2010 that Texas and Texas A&M would no longer play would you have believed me? What's stopping Texas from blackballing Oklahoma the way they blackballed A&M, especially if Oklahoma leaves the Big 12 before UT? Who needs Oklahoma/Texas more? The only way to guarantee they play is for them to play in the same conference.

I know it would be better financially for the Big 10 if OU/UT were in the B1G but geographically they fit better in the SEC and if they were there then Texas and Texas A&M would play again.

Texas may have blackballed A&M in the early days, but they've regretted it. You can tell they are the more eager to renew that series because their home schedule has suffered without it. A&M, for their part, no longer needs that game so they've decided to stick it to UT, it appears.

One day they will play again, maybe in the SEC at that, but I doubt Texas makes the same mistake twice.

If Oklahoma moved to the SEC then ironically, Texas would still need that game more. OU would have a nice complement of home games every year. Texas is the bigger money maker, but you can't make a habit of pissing off everyone you do business with. Eventually, it catches up with you.

Your response was this:

(01-13-2021 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody at UT thinks about A&M.
The schools do play in other sports where it is convenient.

And this:

(01-13-2021 08:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for out of conference, you have been drinking aggy koolaid.
Some of the future Texas opponents:
2021 Arkansas
2022 Alabama
2023 Alabama
2024 Michigan
2025 Ohio St.
2026 Ohio St.
2027 Michigan
2028 Georgia
2029 Georgia
2030 Florida
2031 Florida
2032 Arizona St.
2033 Arizona St.


(01-14-2021 04:36 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't really get what your point is.

How many quality games does Texas have in Austin? I'm talking about rivalry games that the fans really show up for? Or games against perennial powers that might not inspire acrimony, but they certainly get the fans fired up? The non-conference games are great, but you can't play a ton of them every single year.

The Oklahoma game is in Dallas where it should be, but the Austin slate is not what they were used to for several years.

When Del Conte was interviewed last year, he certainly seemed to be the more eager to play A&M again. I can understand why because every team coming through Austin...and I'm talking about the conference slate here, the games that make up the bulk of the home schedule...is considered a middle or lower tier brand.

Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West Virginia

How many of those games fire up the average Texas fan?


(01-14-2021 01:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  You said Texas was concerned about not having A&M on the schedule.

No Texas fan would trade any of those games (except ASU in the '30s) for A&M.
You need to remember what we are talking about instead of changing the subject to something else.

And Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma St. and Kansas St. do generate interest. Certainly more than Ole Miss or Mississippi St. Not as much as Alabama or LSU (who was on the 2019 and pre-covid 2020 schedule).

Of course I remember what we are talking about. I'm the one who brought it up.

Texas wants A&M on the schedule and Del Conte has said as much. I don't really care about the UT bravado...it doesn't influence my thinking or perception. You can pretend it's just us talking...no one else will see it.

I said that the UT home schedule is lacking now that A&M is not on it. That is a true statement. You cannot tell me that adding A&M to the current slate would not automatically improve its value. The only game on the schedule that UT wouldn't give up in exchange is Oklahoma. A&M is a key rival or you folks wouldn't try to pretend you don't care. And you did say in an earlier post that no one at UT thinks about A&M so don't try to backtrack and pretend it's just about the non-conference schedule.

Everyone across the country knows that's a big game. You might as well be telling me that Alabama and Auburn don't care about playing each other. How many people used to show up on Thanksgiving for that game every year? You're going to sit there and tell me that the typical Longhorn fan gave up Thanksgiving Day most years to attend/watch a game of miniscule importance?

It's nice that you have quality non-conference games, but one cool home game every other year is not enough to really fire the fans up. Now maybe it's true that some of those conference games generate interest...I never said they didn't. Ole Miss and Mississippi State and others generate interest for Alabama fans or no one would bother paying for tickets, but those aren't our true rivals that people buy season ticket packages for.

I asked what fires the fans up. What really makes them want to buy season ticket packages so they can see that one special game? OU is obviously #1 on the list, but it's not in Austin and different rules apply. It's not a true home game with 100K people.

A&M on the home schedule on a regular basis would really help the feelings of the typical UT season ticket buyer. I'm sure they want to play Alabama and Georgia and Florida and Arkansas(wow, notice how many SEC schools are on that list, but that's a different topic), but if they had their wish then A&M would be on there too.

Almost nobody but USC plays 9 conference games and 2 P5s. As long at Texas is in the Big 12 and playing 9 conference games, adding A&M makes the schedule worse because we have good ooc opponents they would replace.

Now if you are talking about A&M being in the Big 12 instead of, say, West Virginia, that is a different issue. Or Texas being in the SEC, again a different issue.
01-16-2021 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,153
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1692
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #490
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 05:10 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 01:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-14-2021 04:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-13-2021 04:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  When money didn't keep them together, that was true.

But obviously no one is moving backwards to 8 team leagues or the like. The natural progression is consolidation of money and power...for better or for worse.

When leagues get too big, they break up. As the Pac's predecessor, the MVC, the Southern Conference (when they lost the SEC schools and when they lost the ACC schools), the Big East, the MWC. In fact, only the Big 10 among the P5 isn't a product of a breakup.

A hundred years ago, absolutely.

How many of those leagues had a monetary reason to stay aligned? How many of those leagues were generating billions of dollars in media revenue?

Even the most recent addition to that list, the Mountain West, broke away in order to re-emphasize the original members of the WAC. Nobody was paying that league a ton of money to operate at 16. They had no motivation to endure structural issues.

Even in the case of the MWC, what happened? A handful of teams ascended to the upper echelon and most of those schools are right back in the same conference.

MWC broke up specifically over money. Rivalries were a trigger, but it was absolutely about money as well as coverage and the disastrous WAC TV program. The disintegration of the SWC was also about money.

There is more than one way (ESPN) to make money. Playing low drawing schools like Rice, SMU, TCU (Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland?) hurts the home gate. And the nearby road trips hurt the home gate. If you can see your team staying in Houston or Dallas, why drive to Austin or College Station?

The key being not enough money.

Those leagues weren't generating money in proportion to their peers so realignment took hold. If those leagues had been generating a lot of revenue and been at the top of their peers then there's no reason for the culling to occur.

There is NEVER enough money for an AD!04-cheers
01-16-2021 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
texoma Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 351
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Collegefootball
Location:
Post: #491
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-11-2021 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2021 02:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(01-11-2021 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2021 01:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC were to go to 18 with the Texlahoma 4 then I think the next step is 20 or 24 when the ACC GOR ends.

Right, however the reality of that would make the SEC less likely to move to 18. Do you really want to give up seats that easily now, when it may cost you solid opportunities for market expansion later?

Pro expansion with Texa-homa is that the SEC would dominate the old SWC market with those 4 schools plus Arkansas, A&M, & L.S.U. which is strong in Houston, like A&M. If it is about eyeballs then Texa-homa is worth more than an extra 2 slots for ACC schools.

The con side is that by giving up those two slots you might miss out of a deal that would land the top North Carolina schools. I'm not worried about F.S.U. and Clemson because if the ACC were getting raided those two are safer, wealthier, and their fan bases more secure in the SEC and neither has tag along baggage.

Good points.

If you’re thinking from a strictly SEC standpoint though isn’t there some fear that if you don’t accommodate TTU and OK St in 2024 that you could send say Oklahoma to the Big Ten. I think Oklahoma is itching to make a move and if it’s clear that neither the Big Ten or SEC will take Oklahoma St I think they go to the Big Ten simply to make the academic folks happy.

I think going to 18 in 2024 puts the SEC in a good place to either strategically pick their top 2 ACC schools in 2037 or take 6 if there’s enough programs there that could help compete the SEC and ESPN’s stranglehold of the South.

By 2037 I seriously question what kind of state some of those ACC programs are going to be in. College football’s following may be so weak in NC and VA that it doesn’t even make sense to go after them.

I think it’s smarter to lock in value programs now rather than hold open spots for team’s whose future value may be demonstrably lower by the time they actually become available on the market.

I tend to agree with the last remark about it being better to make that move than to wait. However, look at it from a UT perspective. If you hang back and let Oklahoma move to the Big 10 you accomplish many objectives some of which you never may speak openly. Recruiting in Texas is currently split between 9 nearby P5 schools all of which are in state, a state away, and play Texas schools annually: Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, T.C.U., and Texas Tech. I forget who did the study but there was one done that said P5 schools ideally have an advantage when in their own home state population vs the number of P5 schools is 5,000,000 people to 1 P5 school. The state of Texas has 28 million people. They can support 5 P programs within the state which is exactly what they have. Add the population of Oklahoma and divide by 7 and there isn't enough. Add Arkansas moreso than L.S.U. and there certainly isn't enough without it affecting the number of solid recruits within the area.

If Texas lets Oklahoma head to the Big 10 and keeps the RRR with them, and joins the SEC with just Texas Tech they have given themselves every advantage in the future within their home state. They take away A&M's branding advantage, bring Tech doesn't cost them standing within their state, they effectively demote Baylor and T.C.U. to a conference beneath their new standing and cull Oklahoma State from the mix. They can share Houston with L.S.U. and share DFW with Arkansas and with only 3P schools in state all three Texas schools enhance the number of quality home recruits from which to draw. This isn't a strategy that one can discuss openly, but Texas has a vested interest in culling the number of P programs in state and reducing the exposure to top brands from out of state. Oklahoma in the Big 10 still has the annual game in DFW but getting Texas recruits to play at Oklahoma would get much harder for the Sooners to do only having the 1 game in Texas, whereas Texas will have joined a conference that gives them two old rivals back, limits the games in Texas to games between the 3 public P universities, and gives the Horns exposure into recruit rich Louisiana at a rate perhaps better than L.S.U.'s exposure into Texas and brings back the Hogs which their alumni fondly remember playing.

If Texas and Tech form the same 8 team division of the SEC West that Texas and Oklahoma might have formed it gives Texas all of the advantages without Oklahoma, but while keeping the historic game.

So I'm strongly suggesting that Oklahoma to the Big 10 without Texas may indeed be the outcome Texas wants, but will never speak of publicly.

JR you make a compelling case for what you suggest. However, I disagree on some points. There are so many 4 and 5 star players in the State of Texas and nothing is sure about recruiting 17 year old kids anyway. UT can only take so many players, usually about 20+ players due to the 85 cap. There are so many players in the State they usually have one of the top recruiting classes in the nation. Recruiting has not been their problem. It seems that most high school players in the State grow up wanting to be a Longhorn. So it is hard for me to think that anything will improve Texas recruiting in the State. If they happen to lose one they just move on to the next one that may turn out to be a better college player.

As for Oklahoma recruiting in Texas diminishing if they move to the Big10, history shows that will not be the case. Oklahoma's best days in recruiting Texas were when they were in the Big8 and Texas was in the SWC. OU only played one game in Texas and that was the RRR. That game seemed to lose some of its glamour when Texas joined the Big12. Before it was a regional game, one team from the North...the Big8 and one team from the Southwest.... the SWC. Regional and conference supremacy was at stake. Now it is just a conference game.

Many high school players in Texas relish the idea of getting away from home, but not so far their family and friends cannot see them play home games. Norman, Oklahoma and Austin are the same distance from Dallas. Some players in Texas are closer to Norman than other Universities in the State of Texas.

Additionally, it is my opinion that UT will not join the SEC, because the win-win-win culture of the SEC does not fit them, and they will not follow what they view as their Little Brother (A&M) anywhere and maybe most importantly, and you said yourself "what they want is power". They will not have have more power than anyone else in the SEC.

Anyway that is my opinion.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2021 05:05 PM by texoma.)
01-17-2021 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thiefery Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 555
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation: 16
I Root For: TEXAS
Location:
Post: #492
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
Well UT looks to be all in on the "win-win-win culture" looking at the staff Sark is putting together in Austin. Which has the blessings from not only the AD, but the chairman of the BORs and the School President.

Texas regular home season schedule looks bad only because they haven't been playing as well. Normally there has been an early season loss which indicates issues still haven't been fixed and it rolls out onto the field.

Take next season for example, the home opener vs the Ragin Cajuns will be a sell out, and if they beat Arkansas on the road, when they return to play Rice, it too will be a near sell out.

If Texas can stay competitive in Big12 play, the crowds will be there.
Yesterday 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,626
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 60
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #493
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
When Texas hired Tom Herman, they weren't thinking win-win-win?
When Texas hired Charlie Strong, they weren't thinking win-win-win?

You're more a UT fan than I am, isn't the culture at Austin always high expectations and challenging Oklahoma for the Big 12 title? They don't hire coaches to be .500. Of course they expect Sarkisan to be better than Herman. They also expected Herman to be better than Strong and Strong to be better than Mack Brown. Teams don't fire coaches to stay the same, they fire coaches to get better.
Yesterday 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thiefery Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 555
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation: 16
I Root For: TEXAS
Location:
Post: #494
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(Yesterday 08:30 AM)schmolik Wrote:  When Texas hired Tom Herman, they weren't thinking win-win-win?
When Texas hired Charlie Strong, they weren't thinking win-win-win?

You're more a UT fan than I am, isn't the culture at Austin always high expectations and challenging Oklahoma for the Big 12 title? They don't hire coaches to be .500. Of course they expect Sarkisan to be better than Herman. They also expected Herman to be better than Strong and Strong to be better than Mack Brown. Teams don't fire coaches to stay the same, they fire coaches to get better.

If you are a UT fan you should understand that the Chuck hire wasn't about "win win win".. that hire happened because of the school president and his hired lackey (Patterson) wanting to show up the BORs and BMDs. If they were truly all in with chuck, Morris would have been his OC, not Shawn Watson. And they would have let Chuck bring in Clint Hurtt as well, but they refused so.

Yes we all expected Herman to win and he failed with the initial coaching staff he brought in, redid it the following season and then had a almost a full change a year ago at this time. And make no mistake for all of Toms errors, he left this team much better off than how Chuck left it.. as how Chuck left the roster to Herman much better than what he inherited from Mack Brown.

Look who Sark has brought to his initial staff so far. He brought in Banks where in the past era's most surely would have not been allowed to with his previous infraction. They also have dolled out money for Flood, Banks and the aforementioned Davis. They are looking at Golding, Pruitt, Arnette for DC.

There is a reason for optimism right now and if Sark is who we think he is, this program is taking another huge step and the home schedule will be sell outs
Yesterday 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.