(09-22-2011 02:56 AM)ImsogladIwenttotheUofM Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 02:53 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 01:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  In a perfect world OU would like for Texas to act like a partner than a boss. The Big 12 is where OU belongs and again from OU sources, the Sooners have no desire to be in the SEC. If they did they would be there along with OSU because the SEC would take them both with no problems or questions asked.

I think the bigger problem is that OU doesn't want the SEC not that OSU is tied to them. I think the SEC would take OSU for OU especially since OSU is showing they can play a high level of football.

$EC wants the St Louis market, that's why they invited Mizzou.

Conference expansion isn't about how good a football team is, it's about getting your conference's product in as many households in a TV market; the more market share you have, the bigger the TV contract when negotiations come up again.

That's why the $EC doesn't want two Oklahoma teams..that's double coverage in a market, and a small one at that.

Is Mizzou even near in FB tradition as either of the Oklahoma teams? Heck no. But that Missouri/Eastern Illinois market is huge. Even if it's only 20 or 26% of the St Louis market, Bama vs Mizzou is going to get a big Neilson rating.
Even if 100% of the households in Oklahoma tuned into see Bama vs OK State, that doesn't come close to what less than a third of the St. Louis market can bring.

It's all about gettin' that paper.

Honestly looking at the SEC markets mean little. The SEC does not make money with markets and never has. It has made markets by being the biggest deal in its state, with strong regional rivalries, and really good teams that the rest of the country wants to watch. OU+OSU fits that much better than Missouri and some other unrelated institution. Taking them will be a mistake.

UT might have saved the conference for now, but their reputation took a huge hit.

This round, UT played both the ACC and the PAC. When the B1G TV contract comes up again in a few years and Dodds starts toying with Delany, he won't have any leverage to cut a deal to get the LHN in. What's Bevo gonna do, threatened to go to the Big East unless Delany gives them a preferential cut of B1G profits?

I don't think the OU to PAC bridge is burned, but I think the UT to PAC bridge is pretty much gone at this point.

(09-22-2011 02:56 AM)ImsogladIwenttotheUofM Wrote:  Conference expansion isn't about how good a football team is, it's about getting your conference's product in as many households in a TV market; the more market share you have, the bigger the TV contract when negotiations come up again.

That's why the $EC doesn't want two Oklahoma teams..that's double coverage in a market, and a small one at that.

Conference expansion is not the same for everyone. Unfortunately, everyon ewant to apply the inital stated Big Ten expansion criteria (which they did not even follow as they added the program with by far the smallest market of any team they considered.) to every conference's expansion. I am not sure if anyone told you or not, but most SEC football games are on national TV, with a few left for syndication and then third tier games. The SEC does not need markets for expansion. They only need progrmas that help their overall profile or their TV product. If you have a large market, sure it's a bonus, but entirely unnecessary for the SEC. The fact that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are duplicate markets is not the issue. for example, the SEC would welcome Florida State despite their "duplicate" market (there are other issues however that prevent that from happening.) Likewise the ACC added Syracuse and Pitt, who have much smaller markets than the other teams reportedly considered (Uconn and Rutgers). And they are holding out for Notre Dame home, who has no natural "market" on its own.

I wouldn't say that UT's power has been destroyed. I agree with the article that was recently linked that opined that what UT wanted more than anything now was time, and the chance to get more information. One thing I think that they did learn was that their power has limits - as enticing of a brand as UT may be, unless they're willing to work with the power conferences on those conferences' terms, they won't have the option to join any conference they want. There's a reason that the B1G, SEC, ACC, and Pac-12 are power players in the current setup, and as much as they may want UT, they are in a position to stand their ground.