(06-21-2020 03:21 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

Ahhh it's great to be the Hottest, loaded girl at the party... makes people with great minds do illogical decision makings in order to get her..

They're not the hottest, loaded girl in the ratings department and that's what the networks should care about. Illogical is overpaying for the Little Eight because Texas says so. Screw Texas.

(06-21-2020 03:21 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

Ahhh it's great to be the Hottest, loaded girl at the party... makes people with great minds do illogical decision makings in order to get her..

Meanwhile, Minnesota, Illinois (for some unknown reason), Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland drag down the value for the economically strong Big 10 programs.

(06-21-2020 03:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:21 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

Ahhh it's great to be the Hottest, loaded girl at the party... makes people with great minds do illogical decision makings in order to get her..

They're not the hottest, loaded girl in the ratings department and that's what the networks should care about. Illogical is overpaying for the Little Eight because Texas says so. Screw Texas.

Sounds like the networks disagree with your viewpoint on Texas. Hey man if she friend zoned you it's ok, y'all can still be friends lol

(06-21-2020 03:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:21 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

Ahhh it's great to be the Hottest, loaded girl at the party... makes people with great minds do illogical decision makings in order to get her..

They're not the hottest, loaded girl in the ratings department and that's what the networks should care about. Illogical is overpaying for the Little Eight because Texas says so. Screw Texas.

Damn dude, taking forum talk a little too serious, don't you think?

You let your hate for schools like Texas and Nebraska get in your way of rational thinking.

I do not see Texas putting their non-football sports teams in a situation where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play an away conference event. IMO the only way they would consider joining the ACC in full or as a partial in football, is if they brought enough neighbors with them to have their own division or pod. Then you might as well be talking a merger or scheduling agreement. Just Baylor and TCU is not enough.

(06-21-2020 03:56 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:21 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 03:17 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

The SEC (and Big 10) IMO shouldn't have to take lesser schools to get Texas and Oklahoma. If Texas and Oklahoma don't want to join either conference without their little brothers they can rot in the Big 12. Both conferences will make a boatload of money without UT/UO. If you're ESPN, Texas staying in the Big 12 is bad for you because you got to pay for lousy Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech (all bottom quarter in JRSec's revenue chart). So you tell Texas and Oklahoma you'll pay them more if they ditch the dead weight and less if they insist on staying with them. Why cater to them? And split them. If Texas and Oklahoma stay together and want to stay in the Big 12, you're in trouble because you have to respect them. Once Oklahoma leaves, you can tell Texas the Big 12 isn't worth as much and Texas has less power.

Ahhh it's great to be the Hottest, loaded girl at the party... makes people with great minds do illogical decision makings in order to get her..

They're not the hottest, loaded girl in the ratings department and that's what the networks should care about. Illogical is overpaying for the Little Eight because Texas says so. Screw Texas.

That's what your school said about little boys in their showers.

When you live in glass houses, you should watch about throwing stones.

(06-21-2020 05:39 PM)texoma Wrote:  I do not see Texas putting their non-football sports teams in a situation where they have to travel to Syracuse, Boston, Miami etc., to play an away conference event. IMO the only way they would consider joining the ACC in full or as a partial in football, is if they brought enough neighbors with them to have their own division or pod. Then you might as well be talking a merger or scheduling agreement. Just Baylor and TCU is not enough.

If Texas goes independent in football they will keep the rest of their sports in the Big 12?

Why would the Big 12 agree to this you may ask? Getting some exposure with Texas is better than zero exposure with Texas. Longhorn basketball and the 2-3 football games per year involving Texas that they’d have the rights to make their media package considerably more valuable than without.

(06-21-2020 01:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There are a lot of fanboys with schadenfreude who make such statements around here. It's not how networks and conferences look at this matter.

There are many who would say that adding OSU detracts from the overall value and that's true. But Oklahoma adds to the overall value and the metrics of the two together add as well, just not as much. Obviously logic tells you the SEC would not add just OSU because it does detract. But would the SEC add OU/OSU to increase their payouts incrementally if it meant keeping both OU and UT out of the Big 10? Probably.

Would the SEC prefer to add OU and UT themselves? Absolutely. That pairing would earn each school in the SEC (or Big 10) about 5 million more per year.

Would the SEC if it could only add OU take OSU to get them? Well would the SEC in order to land UT take Tech? Probably in both cases.

What the SEC or Big 10 would prefer to do however is add another solid state flagship with academic standing. So OU/Kansas, or Texas/Kansas would be preferable.

That said I'm becoming more and more convinced that if Texas digs in its heels and OU stands by them, that the Big 12 will survive and eventually grow out of the ACC simply because of the immense economic pressure that will be brought to bear upon them because the Big 10 and SEC will be virtually doubling their media revenue. And if you are ESPN it's much easier to build a competitive and profitable conference around UT and OU than around North Carolina and Duke.

I think so as well. The reality is that both OU and UT have options. While it's nice to think that a certain conference has an ability to "corral" a certain program without strings attached (no pun intended) when there are three other conferences that would like that same program then it's laughable to think that one other conference would have all the leverage.

Also, Iowa State and Kansas State fill up their stadiums, while Indiana, Rutgers and Maryland do not, while the latter three enjoy being in more populous areas. College sports mean that much more in the central plains.

The one big drawback is lack of population outside of Texas, which is why it would be a bonanza for the Big 12 to access the southeastern parts of the country. Whether Disney can make that happen is the bigger question.

Someone has to lose a football game.

I don't think College Football fans will accept a bunch of 7-5 or 8-4 records and feel happy about it.

When you cut out the weaklings, then you cut out those that compete from time to time and you get down to less than 36-40 schools actually playing at the P-5 level. How will you keep fans of ND, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Florida State, Bama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Texas, OU, TAMU, Oregon, Washington, USC, and Georgia happy when they need 10-11 wins to feel like they had a successful season?

What you have then is the NFL where only the playoffs matter and rivalry games mean squat.

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Someone has to lose a football game.

I don't think College Football fans will accept a bunch of 7-5 or 8-4 records and feel happy about it.

When you cut out the weaklings, then you cut out those that compete from time to time and you get down to less than 36-40 schools actually playing at the P-5 level. How will you keep fans of ND, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Florida State, Bama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Texas, OU, TAMU, Oregon, Washington, USC, and Georgia happy when they need 10-11 wins to feel like they had a successful season?

What you have then is the NFL where only the playoffs matter and rivalry games mean squat.

Try telling any single one of my fellow Pittsburgh Steelers fans that games against the Baltimore Ravens mean squat.

(06-22-2020 07:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Someone has to lose a football game.

I don't think College Football fans will accept a bunch of 7-5 or 8-4 records and feel happy about it.

When you cut out the weaklings, then you cut out those that compete from time to time and you get down to less than 36-40 schools actually playing at the P-5 level. How will you keep fans of ND, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Florida State, Bama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Texas, OU, TAMU, Oregon, Washington, USC, and Georgia happy when they need 10-11 wins to feel like they had a successful season?

What you have then is the NFL where only the playoffs matter and rivalry games mean squat.

Try telling any single one of my fellow Pittsburgh Steelers fans that games against the Baltimore Ravens mean squat.

Or the Cowboys and Redskins.

(06-22-2020 07:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-22-2020 02:01 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Someone has to lose a football game.

I don't think College Football fans will accept a bunch of 7-5 or 8-4 records and feel happy about it.

When you cut out the weaklings, then you cut out those that compete from time to time and you get down to less than 36-40 schools actually playing at the P-5 level. How will you keep fans of ND, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Florida State, Bama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Texas, OU, TAMU, Oregon, Washington, USC, and Georgia happy when they need 10-11 wins to feel like they had a successful season?

What you have then is the NFL where only the playoffs matter and rivalry games mean squat.

Try telling any single one of my fellow Pittsburgh Steelers fans that games against the Baltimore Ravens mean squat.

The difference is that NFL fans measure success by being at least 9-7 and being one of the 12 (now 14) out of 32 teams that make the playoffs.

Fans of the biggest name CFB teams are too spoiled for that. Consistently being 7-5 at Ohio State, Alabama, or Texas is a career-ending move (possibly for the AD as well as the head coach). The only other sport where fans of the best teams have the same mentality and demand lopsided W-L records is the top level of European soccer, where the big-name teams, just as in college football, have enormous advantages in talent and resources over more than half of their opponents. And they love it that way. Fans of Ohio State want to stomp on Rutgers and Indiana every year just as much as fans of Barcelona expect to do the same against Eibar and Leganes.

I have a hard time imagining the ADs and coaches of those teams risking their program's name brand in football by jumping into a league where half of those teams will be .500 or worse every year. There are a lot of changes to college football that I could readily imagine, but that's not one of them.