The SEC would take Texas and Texas Tech.
The LHN would be converted and ESPN would make this easy for us.

The Big 10 would take Oklahoma and Kansas.

The ACC would take West Virginia.

The SEC would have all three Texas State schools in the P5 and total domination of the Texas market which is a massive Regional Market.

The Big 10 gets a football national brand and a basketball national brand and we both stop at 16. The added Texas schools would give more SEC schools the opportunity to play in Texas and we are locked into the top revenue position of the remaining P4. With UT there is no need for Oklahoma.

It works from a content angle as well as from a market angle.

Auburn and Alabama move East and Missouri moves West:
Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

We would play 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division annually so that in 4 years everyone has played everyone else.

Thoughts?

Not a problem for me.

Lots of upside there.

(05-23-2017 11:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Not a problem for me.

Lots of upside there.

Indeed. We essentially gain all of Texas without having to take Baylor or T.C.U.. Oklahoma in the Big 10 with only the RRR in Texas each year would be essentially neutralized. Tech is arguably a better potential addition than OSU and we get get the top prize without having to go past 16.

There is a lot of upside. At that point 9 conference games is a must.

7 division games

2 rotating games from the other division

That way you can play everyone once every 4 years.

(05-24-2017 12:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  7 division games

2 rotating games from the other division

That way you can play everyone once every 4 years.

Exactly!

I think the only question is what to do with Oklahoma State?

I don't think OU is going to be able to separate from them. I doubt the state politicos allow it.

(05-24-2017 12:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the only question is what to do with Oklahoma State?

I don't think OU is going to be able to separate from them. I doubt the state politicos allow it.

Same things were said with Texas and Texas A&M. That train can depart, you just need to grease the tracks first.

(05-24-2017 01:00 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 12:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the only question is what to do with Oklahoma State?

I don't think OU is going to be able to separate from them. I doubt the state politicos allow it.

Same things were said with Texas and Texas A&M. That train can depart, you just need to grease the tracks first.

If OU chooses under Boren's direction to head to the Big 10 and we have Texas in hand, then I say let them go because they have made their bed.

(05-24-2017 01:00 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 12:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the only question is what to do with Oklahoma State?

I don't think OU is going to be able to separate from them. I doubt the state politicos allow it.

Same things were said with Texas and Texas A&M. That train can depart, you just need to grease the tracks first.

I think it's a different situation though. A&M was leaving UT and even then they did end up having to play some political games to make it happen.

This would be OU leaving OSU in a conference of reduced money and importance. Far fewer suitors for OSU which is the problem. That's why I compare it more to what we saw with UVA and VT. If the state legislature gets involved then I'm not sure the flagship could break free.

(05-24-2017 01:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 01:00 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 12:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the only question is what to do with Oklahoma State?

I don't think OU is going to be able to separate from them. I doubt the state politicos allow it.

Same things were said with Texas and Texas A&M. That train can depart, you just need to grease the tracks first.

I think it's a different situation though. A&M was leaving UT and even then they did end up having to play some political games to make it happen.

This would be OU leaving OSU in a conference of reduced money and importance. Far fewer suitors for OSU which is the problem. That's why I compare it more to what we saw with UVA and VT. If the state legislature gets involved then I'm not sure the flagship could break free.

All we have to do is get 1 pair. The other is almost sure to want to follow, but even if they don't we're fine.

(05-23-2017 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC would take Texas and Texas Tech.
The LHN would be converted and ESPN would make this easy for us.

The Big 10 would take Oklahoma and Kansas.

The ACC would take West Virginia.

The SEC would have all three Texas State schools in the P5 and total domination of the Texas market which is a massive Regional Market.

The Big 10 gets a football national brand and a basketball national brand and we both stop at 16. The added Texas schools would give more SEC schools the opportunity to play in Texas and we are locked into the top revenue position of the remaining P4. With UT there is no need for Oklahoma.

It works from a content angle as well as from a market angle.

Auburn and Alabama move East and Missouri moves West:
Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

We would play 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division annually so that in 4 years everyone has played everyone else.

Thoughts?

Texas will end up in the ACC.
The Longhorn network subscription rate averages $.29 per month. The SEC network gets $1.40. The SEC already gets rate in Texas, so adding Texas generates no new income for the SECN.
Texas in the ACC and offered as part of the ACCN could bring in an additional $1 per month per subscriber

According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL’s numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn’t comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That’s a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn’t much different. That’s because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas — that’s roughly 13.5 million subscribers — are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network.

A bundled SECN and ACCN could earn everybody (most especially ESPN) much more money without much more effort.

ESPN can not afford to move Texas into the SEC when they have the opportunity to make much, much more by steering the Longhorns to the ACC.

Texas Tech and West Virginia end up in the SEC.
The American takes in TCU and Baylor and signs a scheduling agreement with the SEC and the ACC in an effort to boost their income and provide content for both networks.
Kansas and Oklahoma indeed move to the B1G.
Tulane, Cincinnati or both end up joining the ACC. Texas will start out as a partial to allow multiple American games and allow at least one west coast series along with the RRR. Notre Dame's status will remain the same until the conference structure could be changed (which I do not see the B1G allowing for as long as possible).

Not sure why you all keep insisting we take redundant, unnecessary teams

If we have bring in Texas (which obviously we will oppose but that's not relevant here) then there's no need for Tech

It's like saying "We have Cal and UCLA but let's also spend a realignment slot on Fresno State

There is absolutely no way A&M will support Texas Tech being brought in they are beyond unnecessary to the SEC. if you want your team in the east so badly ask the SEC to change the divisions like swapping with Mizzou without hurting A&Ms program to do so by bringing in a bunch of B12 teams to steal our recruits and force us to play a B12 schedule again

It's about respect for a conference mate

You would NOT go to Florida and tell them "Thanks for being a demographic and academic anchor of the conference but we've decided we want to bring in Miami, FSU, UFC & USF and we don't care about your objections to how this move would hurt your program because we feel it's good for the conference!"

You absolutely wouldnt

(05-24-2017 09:16 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Not sure why you all keep insisting we take redundant, unnecessary teams

If we have bring in Texas (which obviously we will oppose but that's not relevant here) then there's no need for Tech

It's like saying "We have Cal and UCLA but let's also spend a realignment slot on Fresno State

There is absolutely no way A&M will support Texas Tech being brought in they are beyond unnecessary to the SEC. if you want your team in the east so badly ask the SEC to change the divisions like swapping with Mizzou without hurting A&Ms program to do so by bringing in a bunch of B12 teams to steal our recruits and force us to play a B12 schedule again

It's about respect for a conference mate

You would NOT go to Florida and tell them "Thanks for being a demographic and academic anchor of the conference but we've decided we want to bring in Miami, FSU, UFC & USF and we don't care about your objections to how this move would hurt your program because we feel it's good for the conference!"

You absolutely wouldnt

About this whole blocking vote thing, it's an internet myth. Florida sponsored Florida State in '91. Spurrier expressed his support of Clemson as did the South Carolina president in 2011. Florida's Machen was concerned about further expansion and scheduling obligations of growing conferences impairing their ability to play Florida State so he wanted to nominate Florida State again in 2011. Even Georgia's president stated in the meeting that should the ACC face a crisis that he would be in support of Tech if we moved into a larger expansion scenario. Only Kentucky expressed no interest in their in state rival.

What has been trumpeted by message boards everywhere is complete hooey but it has taken on a life of its own. Clay Travis and his totally misinformed views haven't helped.

The gentlemen's agreement was not to add schools from existing markets until the renegotiation clause in the contract we were under in 2010-1 was activated by adding two new markets. Slive requested that to ask the South Carolina, Florida, and possibly the Georgia president from nominating their rivals, not the other way around. Slive's remarks ended with all future nominations will not be constrained by any norm except that the addition add to our bottom line.

Well if a pair of schools (OU and OSU) or (UT & TTU) is what one of the two remaining national brands who happen to be 1st and 4th in gross revenue produced through athletics requests that second school and the pair of them add to our bottom line it will be considered. It especially will be considered if adding them locks us into a position of superior revenue numbers from here on out, and either pair would.

When we don't consider schools for addition it is because they pull down one of our metrics of Revenue or Academics. Attendance is important too.

West Virginia pulls down all three.
T.C.U. pulls down all three.
Baylor pulls down all three.
Oklahoma State pulls down all three.
Texas Tech pulls down all three.
Kansas State pulls down all three.
Iowa State pulls down two of three.
Kansas pulls down two of three.
Oklahoma is a slight academic add, a big revenue addition, and a slight attendance decline (they sell out but just don't have the capacity).
Texas is a major plus in all 3 categories.

The SEC's revenue mean is 123 million per school and our mean attendance is 77,500.

Of the two pairs offered Texas Tech is the better academic addition than OSU. Texas is the better academic add than OU. Texas and Tech together would be closer to the SEC mean attendance than OU and OSU. And the revenue totals Texas (180 million) and Tech (73 million) when averaged would be higher than our mean. OU (150 million) and OSU (92 million) would be just under the mean. Content wise OU and OSU are more valuable and content moving forward will be important because in a streaming world that is what is rewarded.

So really when you factor in everything either pair would add enough to be worth taking. However, UT and TTU would give the SEC a strangle hold on advertising for Texas advertising on Saturdays. Oklahoma and OSU can't deliver that and neither can Kansas.

The SEC is a business. It functions like the major business it is. Personalities and prejudice just don't enter the board room and haven't since the 60's when Bear and Bobby Dodd had issues with one another (which led to Ga Tech's departure).

The reason Auburn was stuck in the west had more to do with the Iron Bowl being the top viewed game in the nation during rivalries week in the majority of years and Tennessee vs Alabama being the one of the annual top viewed games in October while Auburn and Georgia was close to the top in November. The SEC was making decisions based on revenue generation. Auburn Tennessee and Auburn Florida simply had not historically been as big.

Today, although ESPN would never permit it, Florida State and Clemson as content additions would both be valuable enough to add. The market model has a pulse but as far as planning additions it would be DNR.

I think you're missing my point

If Florida said "we don't want FSU Miami UCF and USF added" that would be the end of the discussion. No one would tell Florida "too bad, controlling all of FL is more important than your athletic program"

(05-24-2017 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC would take Texas and Texas Tech.
The LHN would be converted and ESPN would make this easy for us.

The Big 10 would take Oklahoma and Kansas.

The ACC would take West Virginia.

The SEC would have all three Texas State schools in the P5 and total domination of the Texas market which is a massive Regional Market.

The Big 10 gets a football national brand and a basketball national brand and we both stop at 16. The added Texas schools would give more SEC schools the opportunity to play in Texas and we are locked into the top revenue position of the remaining P4. With UT there is no need for Oklahoma.

It works from a content angle as well as from a market angle.

Auburn and Alabama move East and Missouri moves West:
Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

We would play 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division annually so that in 4 years everyone has played everyone else.

Thoughts?

Texas will end up in the ACC.
The Longhorn network subscription rate averages $.29 per month. The SEC network gets $1.40. The SEC already gets rate in Texas, so adding Texas generates no new income for the SECN.
Texas in the ACC and offered as part of the ACCN could bring in an additional $1 per month per subscriber

According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL’s numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn’t comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That’s a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn’t much different. That’s because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas — that’s roughly 13.5 million subscribers — are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network.

A bundled SECN and ACCN could earn everybody (most especially ESPN) much more money without much more effort.

ESPN can not afford to move Texas into the SEC when they have the opportunity to make much, much more by steering the Longhorns to the ACC.

Texas Tech and West Virginia end up in the SEC.
The American takes in TCU and Baylor and signs a scheduling agreement with the SEC and the ACC in an effort to boost their income and provide content for both networks.
Kansas and Oklahoma indeed move to the B1G.
Tulane, Cincinnati or both end up joining the ACC. Texas will start out as a partial to allow multiple American games and allow at least one west coast series along with the RRR. Notre Dame's status will remain the same until the conference structure could be changed (which I do not see the B1G allowing for as long as possible).

Sorry X, but the whole market model is "do not resuscitate". Capitalizing on Texas advertising is the reasoning behind this. If we hold all three state schools the rates would go up for ESPN. And if we do bundle it won't matter which conference they are in. The LHN will simply be negotiated out and for the years left before streaming kicks in fully there simply isn't a great enough duration to worry about the 1.30-1.40 carriage rate.

The SEC is never going to take two schools that don't add to any of our metrics.

And X the SEC made twice as much revenue last year as the ACC. If ESPN is going to piss one of us off it won't be the SEC. They don't have 100% of our rights and 2034 isn't that far away. The SEC has been angered with ESPN before about moves that favored the ACC. They have given us a mea culpa over that. But we remember. If they sent product that we have desired for decades to the ACC and our reward was TTU and WVU they lose our business and then we use our clout to take what we want from the ACC and taking F.S.U. and Clemson would gut your values should we be aligned with another Network. They aren't that stupid and neither is Swofford. Quite simply the ACC could not continue to exist as you like it without our passivity with regards to your conference. On your own you simply don't have the clout past John Skipper. If he screwed up our standing with ESPN I imagine Disney would replace him post haste. We make them money and you aren't even in the same league in that regard.

If we don't acquire either OU or Texas in this next move we stay at 14. And if there is even a hint that ESPN screwed it up they won't get our T1 rights in 2023, will lose our T2 rights after that, and they won't have the SECN past 2034.

(05-24-2017 10:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think you're missing my point

If Florida said "we don't want FSU Miami UCF and USF added" that would be the end of the discussion. No one would tell Florida "too bad, controlling all of FL is more important than your athletic program"

No X you are missing mine. None of our schools treat this matter personally. The treat it like a business. While Kentucky didn't want Louisville their reasons were viable in 2010. Louisville didn't add to our bottom line. When Florida and South Carolina were willing to sponsor their in state rivals it was because their whole donation system for their Athletic Departments are based on priority to receive F.S.U. and Clemson game tickets. And in the case of Florida State its also a matter of having leverage for advertising in Florida. How much more valuable would it be in Texas? Three times more valuable.

At no time do any of our presidents say we don't want school x or school y because we don't like them. What your president says and does in public or what ours might say or do with regards to addressing fans, is quite different than what they do when cloistered and discussing what does and doesn't add to our bottom line. Texas makes everyone more money. Texas adds to the conferences academic standing. Nobody behind closed doors and functioning as the SEC's board of directors are going to allow personal animus to foul that up. Publicly he can say he was against it. He may even cast a vote against it in the quorum, but when he does he knows the other 13 presidents and the commissioner will vote for what benefits the bottom line and the academic prestige of the conference. They give each other a wink and it is done. That's why when we extend an invitation the formal vote is required to be unanimous.

So what I'm trying to tell you is that the scenario you suggest simply doesn't exist in the board room. And that 10th is why the SEC is where it is and the Big 12 and PAC and to a lesser extent the ACC aren't. The Big 10 operates just like we do but with a slightly altered priorities list.

From the Godfather, "It's not personal Michael, it's just business."

(05-24-2017 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC would take Texas and Texas Tech.
The LHN would be converted and ESPN would make this easy for us.

The Big 10 would take Oklahoma and Kansas.

The ACC would take West Virginia.

The SEC would have all three Texas State schools in the P5 and total domination of the Texas market which is a massive Regional Market.

The Big 10 gets a football national brand and a basketball national brand and we both stop at 16. The added Texas schools would give more SEC schools the opportunity to play in Texas and we are locked into the top revenue position of the remaining P4. With UT there is no need for Oklahoma.

It works from a content angle as well as from a market angle.

Auburn and Alabama move East and Missouri moves West:
Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

We would play 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division annually so that in 4 years everyone has played everyone else.

Thoughts?

Texas will end up in the ACC.
The Longhorn network subscription rate averages $.29 per month. The SEC network gets $1.40. The SEC already gets rate in Texas, so adding Texas generates no new income for the SECN.
Texas in the ACC and offered as part of the ACCN could bring in an additional $1 per month per subscriber

According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL’s numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn’t comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That’s a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn’t much different. That’s because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas — that’s roughly 13.5 million subscribers — are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network.

A bundled SECN and ACCN could earn everybody (most especially ESPN) much more money without much more effort.

ESPN can not afford to move Texas into the SEC when they have the opportunity to make much, much more by steering the Longhorns to the ACC.

Texas Tech and West Virginia end up in the SEC.
The American takes in TCU and Baylor and signs a scheduling agreement with the SEC and the ACC in an effort to boost their income and provide content for both networks.
Kansas and Oklahoma indeed move to the B1G.
Tulane, Cincinnati or both end up joining the ACC. Texas will start out as a partial to allow multiple American games and allow at least one west coast series along with the RRR. Notre Dame's status will remain the same until the conference structure could be changed (which I do not see the B1G allowing for as long as possible).

Sorry X, but the whole market model is "do not resuscitate". Capitalizing on Texas advertising is the reasoning behind this. If we hold all three state schools the rates would go up for ESPN. And if we do bundle it won't matter which conference they are in. The LHN will simply be negotiated out and for the years left before streaming kicks in fully there simply isn't a great enough duration to worry about the 1.30-1.40 carriage rate.

The SEC is never going to take two schools that don't add to any of our metrics.

And X the SEC made twice as much revenue last year as the ACC. If ESPN is going to piss one of us off it won't be the SEC. They don't have 100% of our rights and 2034 isn't that far away. The SEC has been angered with ESPN before about moves that favored the ACC. They have given us a mea culpa over that. But we remember. If they sent product that we have desired for decades to the ACC and our reward was TTU and WVU they lose our business and then we use our clout to take what we want from the ACC and taking F.S.U. and Clemson would gut your values should we be aligned with another Network. They aren't that stupid and neither is Swofford. Quite simply the ACC could not continue to exist as you like it without our passivity with regards to your conference. On your own you simply don't have the clout past John Skipper. If he screwed up our standing with ESPN I imagine Disney would replace him post haste. We make them money and you aren't even in the same league in that regard.

If we don't acquire either OU or Texas in this next move we stay at 14. And if there is even a hint that ESPN screwed it up they won't get our T1 rights in 2023, will lose our T2 rights after that, and they won't have the SECN past 2034.

You're going to be disappointed JR if you are holding out for Texas.
Threats JR? Try holding your breath until you start to turn Blue.

(05-24-2017 11:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-24-2017 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-23-2017 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC would take Texas and Texas Tech.
The LHN would be converted and ESPN would make this easy for us.

The Big 10 would take Oklahoma and Kansas.

The ACC would take West Virginia.

The SEC would have all three Texas State schools in the P5 and total domination of the Texas market which is a massive Regional Market.

The Big 10 gets a football national brand and a basketball national brand and we both stop at 16. The added Texas schools would give more SEC schools the opportunity to play in Texas and we are locked into the top revenue position of the remaining P4. With UT there is no need for Oklahoma.

It works from a content angle as well as from a market angle.

Auburn and Alabama move East and Missouri moves West:
Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

We would play 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division annually so that in 4 years everyone has played everyone else.

Thoughts?

Texas will end up in the ACC.
The Longhorn network subscription rate averages $.29 per month. The SEC network gets $1.40. The SEC already gets rate in Texas, so adding Texas generates no new income for the SECN.
Texas in the ACC and offered as part of the ACCN could bring in an additional $1 per month per subscriber

According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL’s numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn’t comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That’s a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn’t much different. That’s because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas — that’s roughly 13.5 million subscribers — are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network.

A bundled SECN and ACCN could earn everybody (most especially ESPN) much more money without much more effort.

ESPN can not afford to move Texas into the SEC when they have the opportunity to make much, much more by steering the Longhorns to the ACC.

Texas Tech and West Virginia end up in the SEC.
The American takes in TCU and Baylor and signs a scheduling agreement with the SEC and the ACC in an effort to boost their income and provide content for both networks.
Kansas and Oklahoma indeed move to the B1G.
Tulane, Cincinnati or both end up joining the ACC. Texas will start out as a partial to allow multiple American games and allow at least one west coast series along with the RRR. Notre Dame's status will remain the same until the conference structure could be changed (which I do not see the B1G allowing for as long as possible).

Sorry X, but the whole market model is "do not resuscitate". Capitalizing on Texas advertising is the reasoning behind this. If we hold all three state schools the rates would go up for ESPN. And if we do bundle it won't matter which conference they are in. The LHN will simply be negotiated out and for the years left before streaming kicks in fully there simply isn't a great enough duration to worry about the 1.30-1.40 carriage rate.

The SEC is never going to take two schools that don't add to any of our metrics.

And X the SEC made twice as much revenue last year as the ACC. If ESPN is going to piss one of us off it won't be the SEC. They don't have 100% of our rights and 2034 isn't that far away. The SEC has been angered with ESPN before about moves that favored the ACC. They have given us a mea culpa over that. But we remember. If they sent product that we have desired for decades to the ACC and our reward was TTU and WVU they lose our business and then we use our clout to take what we want from the ACC and taking F.S.U. and Clemson would gut your values should we be aligned with another Network. They aren't that stupid and neither is Swofford. Quite simply the ACC could not continue to exist as you like it without our passivity with regards to your conference. On your own you simply don't have the clout past John Skipper. If he screwed up our standing with ESPN I imagine Disney would replace him post haste. We make them money and you aren't even in the same league in that regard.

If we don't acquire either OU or Texas in this next move we stay at 14. And if there is even a hint that ESPN screwed it up they won't get our T1 rights in 2023, will lose our T2 rights after that, and they won't have the SECN past 2034.

You're going to be disappointed JR if you are holding out for Texas.
Threats JR? Try holding your breath until you start to turn Blue.

It's not a threat X. Any business entity will act in its own self interest. So much as your interests align with ours and you don't interfere with our business you are fine. Same goes for the network. When those circumstances change so will our approach. You screwed up a deal that cost us once before. If you now seek to capitalize on that any further cooperation with you is impractical. ESPN can't afford the coexistence to end. And if they are forced to choose between us you don't win. And there are more than 3.5 billion reasons for that.

(05-24-2017 10:59 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think you're missing my point

If Florida said "we don't want FSU Miami UCF and USF added" that would be the end of the discussion. No one would tell Florida "too bad, controlling all of FL is more important than your athletic program"

Let me offer another perspective...

Admittedly, I wasn't there when these things were being discussed, but I can't imagine that this very topic wasn't broached when A&M was in talks to join the league.

SEC officials surely said..."hey A&M, if Texas comes calling at some point then we can't leave that on the table. Are you good with that?"

I can't imagine A&M said anything other than "yeah, if it has to be that way."

After all, there was a point where the two had talks to join the SEC together back in the late 80s/early 90s. I know things have probably soured a little more since then, but we're still talking about flagship schools in the same state.

Another thought as well. I've suggested this in the past and I want to reiterate. Competition is a good thing. The addition of Texas would not hurt your program. Playing that game every year again...competing head to head for recruits and dollars...iron sharpens iron my friend.

Alabama and Auburn are both stronger for having to compete against each other in the premier conference. The entire model of SEC competition is built on elite vs elite. It strengthens us.

But your not talking just UT (which would be bad enough) this is talk of adding UT, OU, OSU and TTU. It would kill our recruiting and our ticket sales and puts us right back where we were before we joined...just making a little more money

If that was done to us it's even possible we would not stay in the SEC

I know there's no equivalent example for Alabama but it would be like telling Florida "were adding FSU/UCF/USF/Miami to compete with you for recruits and fans in your home state (the Okie schoolsxare Texas schools for all intents and purposes the way they steal our students and athletes) and take up 4/5ths of your new schedule instead of playing real SEC games and we don't care if you don't want it"