CSNbbs
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? (/thread-639096.html)



RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 06-11-2018 05:21 AM

(06-10-2018 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 10:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 02:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-09-2018 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Kansas State in the SEC should become "the" football school in Kansas. I agree we could do worse. But we could also do better. But really any of the 18 school scenarios I laid out above would be acceptable.

What would be ideal is for Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Oklahoma State to head to the PAC to take them to 16. The Big 10 bites the bullet and takes the only two AAU schools left and adds Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC takes West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame and the SEC moves to 16 with the Sooners and Horns.

The second best option is for us to move to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and any of West Virginia, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U., or even Texas Tech.

Then the next best option is OU and OSU to 16.

If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.

In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.

If Oklahoma State is the price for getting the wheels moving then there's really no reason not to take them. They're a decent brand and they would fit well. The streaming model would actually increase their value as the specific market doesn't matter as much. I have no issue with OSU if it's politically necessary.

Kansas does have greater brand value of any potential 4th. I think ESPN wants to keep them in the fold anyway so my theory has been the network would attempt to push UT, OU, OSU, and KU into the SEC.

The only snag I see is timing. If we need the cooperation of other leagues to get what we want then I wouldn't bet on an amicable separation of the Big 12.

Of course, we could just wait until the GOR is up to attempt any moves. I actually think our only other option would be to absorb the entire league.

I think if the pair of Oklahoma schools have a way out in 2023-4 that they take it. They give a one year's notice and the money the conference withholds becomes their buyout. If Texas wants out at that point then they could either leave the same way along with the 4th, or they could wait a year and then move with the 4th without having any revenue withheld.

If they come sooner than at the end of 2023-4 then yeah the network is going to have to promise at least 8 of them homes. They vote to disband the conference (8 votes) and that voids the GOR which can also be waived by the networks.

I think if both Fox and ESPN profited equally from waiving the GOR then they might just do that. I don't see any way they profit equally though.

There's too many moving parts to make every player happy whether that's the networks, the conferences, or all the current Big 12 schools.

I think the only simple solution in all of this would be the absorption of the Big 12, but that carries its own set of issues.

I wouldn't discount, however, that ESPN might be interested in moving more than 4 schools into the SEC from the Big 12 when the 1st Tier rights come up for bid. I think one of their goals will be moving Power 5 content to ESPN+. That will be one of the best ways to guarantee subscriptions for a large number of people who might be willing to stick around all year long.

If the RSN deal goes through with Fox then ESPN is going to have a lot of out of market content to sell online. Ultimately, the price of that service is going to jump if it really takes off. If that happens then the only real gap that ESPN+ will have in its product offerings(as far as popular demand goes) will be Power 5 football and basketball. At that point, the more schools under their umbrella the more content they can move to ESPN+ and guarantee more subs during that portion of the calendar year.

If I had to bet, I think ESPN would rather keep the ACC together in that scenario. The only way ESPN would gain dominion by breaking up the ACC is if they could use ACC properties to secure a contract with the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten has shown a propensity for not playing along so even if ESPN got a more favorable deal with that league then the long term costs might not be worth it. I think we've entered a time period when conferences have figured out that shorter term deals are better for negotiations and the B1G is probably not going back to the old way, but more than that there's no guarantee that the B1G would continue to partner with ESPN past the expiration date of one contract. The league could just as easily take their newfound ACC schools and sign with someone else.

I think ESPN has a long term interest in maintaining the ACC. The problem will be paying those schools enough so that they don't have wandering eyes. Getting Notre Dame to go all in will be key so I think eliminating the Big 12 has got to be high on the priority list so that we can move steadily in the direction of a CFP format with no options for an independent team.

No new SWC for Texas and no outlet for ND. I think that's got to be ESPN's play. That means the ACC needs value and more TX schools have to be accounted for.

I would suggest something like this...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the SEC

TCU, Houston, and West Virginia move to the ACC with Notre Dame joining in full.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Hokie Mark - 06-11-2018 05:40 AM

(06-11-2018 05:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 10:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 02:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.

In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.

If Oklahoma State is the price for getting the wheels moving then there's really no reason not to take them. They're a decent brand and they would fit well. The streaming model would actually increase their value as the specific market doesn't matter as much. I have no issue with OSU if it's politically necessary.

Kansas does have greater brand value of any potential 4th. I think ESPN wants to keep them in the fold anyway so my theory has been the network would attempt to push UT, OU, OSU, and KU into the SEC.

The only snag I see is timing. If we need the cooperation of other leagues to get what we want then I wouldn't bet on an amicable separation of the Big 12.

Of course, we could just wait until the GOR is up to attempt any moves. I actually think our only other option would be to absorb the entire league.

I think if the pair of Oklahoma schools have a way out in 2023-4 that they take it. They give a one year's notice and the money the conference withholds becomes their buyout. If Texas wants out at that point then they could either leave the same way along with the 4th, or they could wait a year and then move with the 4th without having any revenue withheld.

If they come sooner than at the end of 2023-4 then yeah the network is going to have to promise at least 8 of them homes. They vote to disband the conference (8 votes) and that voids the GOR which can also be waived by the networks.

I think if both Fox and ESPN profited equally from waiving the GOR then they might just do that. I don't see any way they profit equally though.

There's too many moving parts to make every player happy whether that's the networks, the conferences, or all the current Big 12 schools.

I think the only simple solution in all of this would be the absorption of the Big 12, but that carries its own set of issues.

I wouldn't discount, however, that ESPN might be interested in moving more than 4 schools into the SEC from the Big 12 when the 1st Tier rights come up for bid. I think one of their goals will be moving Power 5 content to ESPN+. That will be one of the best ways to guarantee subscriptions for a large number of people who might be willing to stick around all year long.

If the RSN deal goes through with Fox then ESPN is going to have a lot of out of market content to sell online. Ultimately, the price of that service is going to jump if it really takes off. If that happens then the only real gap that ESPN+ will have in its product offerings(as far as popular demand goes) will be Power 5 football and basketball. At that point, the more schools under their umbrella the more content they can move to ESPN+ and guarantee more subs during that portion of the calendar year.

If I had to bet, I think ESPN would rather keep the ACC together in that scenario. The only way ESPN would gain dominion by breaking up the ACC is if they could use ACC properties to secure a contract with the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten has shown a propensity for not playing along so even if ESPN got a more favorable deal with that league then the long term costs might not be worth it. I think we've entered a time period when conferences have figured out that shorter term deals are better for negotiations and the B1G is probably not going back to the old way, but more than that there's no guarantee that the B1G would continue to partner with ESPN past the expiration date of one contract. The league could just as easily take their newfound ACC schools and sign with someone else.

I think ESPN has a long term interest in maintaining the ACC. The problem will be paying those schools enough so that they don't have wandering eyes. Getting Notre Dame to go all in will be key so I think eliminating the Big 12 has got to be high on the priority list so that we can move steadily in the direction of a CFP format with no options for an independent team.

No new SWC for Texas and no outlet for ND. I think that's got to be ESPN's play. That means the ACC needs value and more TX schools have to be accounted for.

I would suggest something like this...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the SEC

TCU, Houston, and West Virginia move to the ACC with Notre Dame joining in full.

As an ACC fan, I would REALLY like that. Houston and TCU fit better than most Texas schools, and we've already discussed how valuable WVU could be as a multiplier. I'm just not sure if this would result in Notre Dame joining for football.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-11-2018 10:22 AM

(06-11-2018 05:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 10:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 02:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If we get Oklahoma and Texas in the deal then it almost doesn't matter who the other two are...assuming it's necessary to go to 18 in order to land both studs.

With that said, I think some of those options are better than others.

Kansas adds subs, but doesn't offer much content value outside of basketball. Kansas State accesses a different market so they probably bring more value than Oklahoma State assuming we already have Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State is not a bad addition as far as content. It's just that they wouldn't give us much that Oklahoma didn't already secure. It's probably a safe bet that OSU is required to get OU though so it might not matter.

We've covered what I think of TCU.

Texas Tech is a decent addition in some respects, but we're not talking about a school with a huge fan base and it's atypical for them to provide much quality in regards to football or basketball. Texas might want them included, but I'm not sure UT is going to care.

Baylor offers very little. Iowa State would be an interesting choice, but they're awfully far away and I'm not sure the fit would be that tight.

Actually, I think West Virginia becomes more valuable in a streaming environment. They get you some subs up through the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. You're always going to get decent football and probably decent basketball as long as they've got the money to spend on a coach.

There's not a lot of obvious choices here, but I'd say that if we could wrangle away TCU in addition to Texas and Oklahoma then we've got the vast, vast majority of value the Big 12 offers.

I would also say move to 20 so we don't have to figure out a tiebreaker system to send a wildcard to the conference semis. That and I think the more the merrier when it comes to creating value with streaming. The more content under one roof the better off we'll be in any negotiation.

In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.

If Oklahoma State is the price for getting the wheels moving then there's really no reason not to take them. They're a decent brand and they would fit well. The streaming model would actually increase their value as the specific market doesn't matter as much. I have no issue with OSU if it's politically necessary.

Kansas does have greater brand value of any potential 4th. I think ESPN wants to keep them in the fold anyway so my theory has been the network would attempt to push UT, OU, OSU, and KU into the SEC.

The only snag I see is timing. If we need the cooperation of other leagues to get what we want then I wouldn't bet on an amicable separation of the Big 12.

Of course, we could just wait until the GOR is up to attempt any moves. I actually think our only other option would be to absorb the entire league.

I think if the pair of Oklahoma schools have a way out in 2023-4 that they take it. They give a one year's notice and the money the conference withholds becomes their buyout. If Texas wants out at that point then they could either leave the same way along with the 4th, or they could wait a year and then move with the 4th without having any revenue withheld.

If they come sooner than at the end of 2023-4 then yeah the network is going to have to promise at least 8 of them homes. They vote to disband the conference (8 votes) and that voids the GOR which can also be waived by the networks.

I think if both Fox and ESPN profited equally from waiving the GOR then they might just do that. I don't see any way they profit equally though.

There's too many moving parts to make every player happy whether that's the networks, the conferences, or all the current Big 12 schools.

I think the only simple solution in all of this would be the absorption of the Big 12, but that carries its own set of issues.

I wouldn't discount, however, that ESPN might be interested in moving more than 4 schools into the SEC from the Big 12 when the 1st Tier rights come up for bid. I think one of their goals will be moving Power 5 content to ESPN+. That will be one of the best ways to guarantee subscriptions for a large number of people who might be willing to stick around all year long.

If the RSN deal goes through with Fox then ESPN is going to have a lot of out of market content to sell online. Ultimately, the price of that service is going to jump if it really takes off. If that happens then the only real gap that ESPN+ will have in its product offerings(as far as popular demand goes) will be Power 5 football and basketball. At that point, the more schools under their umbrella the more content they can move to ESPN+ and guarantee more subs during that portion of the calendar year.

If I had to bet, I think ESPN would rather keep the ACC together in that scenario. The only way ESPN would gain dominion by breaking up the ACC is if they could use ACC properties to secure a contract with the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten has shown a propensity for not playing along so even if ESPN got a more favorable deal with that league then the long term costs might not be worth it. I think we've entered a time period when conferences have figured out that shorter term deals are better for negotiations and the B1G is probably not going back to the old way, but more than that there's no guarantee that the B1G would continue to partner with ESPN past the expiration date of one contract. The league could just as easily take their newfound ACC schools and sign with someone else.

I think ESPN has a long term interest in maintaining the ACC. The problem will be paying those schools enough so that they don't have wandering eyes. Getting Notre Dame to go all in will be key so I think eliminating the Big 12 has got to be high on the priority list so that we can move steadily in the direction of a CFP format with no options for an independent team.

No new SWC for Texas and no outlet for ND. I think that's got to be ESPN's play. That means the ACC needs value and more TX schools have to be accounted for.

I would suggest something like this...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the SEC

TCU, Houston, and West Virginia move to the ACC with Notre Dame joining in full.

Contracts are back loaded. GOR's are front loaded. By the time that 1 year remains on a GOR it is essentially meaningless as far as a buyout goes. That is why 2023-4 is the time frame.

So there won't be enough left on the FOX portion of the GOR to worry about. ESPN can still instigate these moves unilaterally. Also I don't think 18 is likely for the SEC unless Texas wants in after OU and OSU have been offered. If we move to 20 it won't be just out of the Big 12. And if we added OU and UT out of the Big 12 I don't think we would expand further unless it was a defensive move.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-11-2018 10:27 AM

(06-11-2018 05:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 05:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 10:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-10-2018 02:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In your reply you forgot the supposition of the discussion. That first it was necessary to take OSU to insure landing OU. Therefore for the purposes of this page of posts the active question was "What if after OU an OSU are offered, Texas decides to apply?" Therefore we are assuming 3 schools: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas. So the operative question was who is #4 and why? Odin Frigg seems to prefer Kansas State. I tend toward W.V.U. Odin Frigg tends to discount T.C.U. and I understand why. If we have the two Oklahoma's, and Texas in addition to Texas A&M and Arkansas we have the vast majority of the DFW market without T.C.U..

While I see value in having a school actually in DFW, their value would however be greatly diminished compared to the collective fan bases of the other 5 schools.

I see brand value in Kansas suckwind football or not and Missouri might prefer them, (might not) but they are their rival.

West Virginia does bring an interesting market. Kansas State does add the state of Kansas to our profile but that's a state of under 3 million.

Premise of the discussion aside if I could simply pick 4 without having to consider the politics and leverage necessary to make a big move happen I would simply take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. That's three new states and 2 huge prizes.

Then the conference would look like this:

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia.

Without taking ACC schools that's as a complete haul of value from the Big 12 as we could acquire.

I'm just relatively convinced that Oklahoma State may be necessary.

If Oklahoma State is the price for getting the wheels moving then there's really no reason not to take them. They're a decent brand and they would fit well. The streaming model would actually increase their value as the specific market doesn't matter as much. I have no issue with OSU if it's politically necessary.

Kansas does have greater brand value of any potential 4th. I think ESPN wants to keep them in the fold anyway so my theory has been the network would attempt to push UT, OU, OSU, and KU into the SEC.

The only snag I see is timing. If we need the cooperation of other leagues to get what we want then I wouldn't bet on an amicable separation of the Big 12.

Of course, we could just wait until the GOR is up to attempt any moves. I actually think our only other option would be to absorb the entire league.

I think if the pair of Oklahoma schools have a way out in 2023-4 that they take it. They give a one year's notice and the money the conference withholds becomes their buyout. If Texas wants out at that point then they could either leave the same way along with the 4th, or they could wait a year and then move with the 4th without having any revenue withheld.

If they come sooner than at the end of 2023-4 then yeah the network is going to have to promise at least 8 of them homes. They vote to disband the conference (8 votes) and that voids the GOR which can also be waived by the networks.

I think if both Fox and ESPN profited equally from waiving the GOR then they might just do that. I don't see any way they profit equally though.

There's too many moving parts to make every player happy whether that's the networks, the conferences, or all the current Big 12 schools.

I think the only simple solution in all of this would be the absorption of the Big 12, but that carries its own set of issues.

I wouldn't discount, however, that ESPN might be interested in moving more than 4 schools into the SEC from the Big 12 when the 1st Tier rights come up for bid. I think one of their goals will be moving Power 5 content to ESPN+. That will be one of the best ways to guarantee subscriptions for a large number of people who might be willing to stick around all year long.

If the RSN deal goes through with Fox then ESPN is going to have a lot of out of market content to sell online. Ultimately, the price of that service is going to jump if it really takes off. If that happens then the only real gap that ESPN+ will have in its product offerings(as far as popular demand goes) will be Power 5 football and basketball. At that point, the more schools under their umbrella the more content they can move to ESPN+ and guarantee more subs during that portion of the calendar year.

If I had to bet, I think ESPN would rather keep the ACC together in that scenario. The only way ESPN would gain dominion by breaking up the ACC is if they could use ACC properties to secure a contract with the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten has shown a propensity for not playing along so even if ESPN got a more favorable deal with that league then the long term costs might not be worth it. I think we've entered a time period when conferences have figured out that shorter term deals are better for negotiations and the B1G is probably not going back to the old way, but more than that there's no guarantee that the B1G would continue to partner with ESPN past the expiration date of one contract. The league could just as easily take their newfound ACC schools and sign with someone else.

I think ESPN has a long term interest in maintaining the ACC. The problem will be paying those schools enough so that they don't have wandering eyes. Getting Notre Dame to go all in will be key so I think eliminating the Big 12 has got to be high on the priority list so that we can move steadily in the direction of a CFP format with no options for an independent team.

No new SWC for Texas and no outlet for ND. I think that's got to be ESPN's play. That means the ACC needs value and more TX schools have to be accounted for.

I would suggest something like this...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the SEC

TCU, Houston, and West Virginia move to the ACC with Notre Dame joining in full.

As an ACC fan, I would REALLY like that. Houston and TCU fit better than most Texas schools, and we've already discussed how valuable WVU could be as a multiplier. I'm just not sure if this would result in Notre Dame joining for football.

I don't think any G5's get promoted. I think it would be Baylor, T.C.U. and West Virginia. Besides look at the revenue end. Baylor knocks down over 90 million in Total Revenue. Houston doesn't and is subsidized.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 06-11-2018 01:43 PM

(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 05:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think if both Fox and ESPN profited equally from waiving the GOR then they might just do that. I don't see any way they profit equally though.

There's too many moving parts to make every player happy whether that's the networks, the conferences, or all the current Big 12 schools.

I think the only simple solution in all of this would be the absorption of the Big 12, but that carries its own set of issues.

I wouldn't discount, however, that ESPN might be interested in moving more than 4 schools into the SEC from the Big 12 when the 1st Tier rights come up for bid. I think one of their goals will be moving Power 5 content to ESPN+. That will be one of the best ways to guarantee subscriptions for a large number of people who might be willing to stick around all year long.

If the RSN deal goes through with Fox then ESPN is going to have a lot of out of market content to sell online. Ultimately, the price of that service is going to jump if it really takes off. If that happens then the only real gap that ESPN+ will have in its product offerings(as far as popular demand goes) will be Power 5 football and basketball. At that point, the more schools under their umbrella the more content they can move to ESPN+ and guarantee more subs during that portion of the calendar year.

If I had to bet, I think ESPN would rather keep the ACC together in that scenario. The only way ESPN would gain dominion by breaking up the ACC is if they could use ACC properties to secure a contract with the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten has shown a propensity for not playing along so even if ESPN got a more favorable deal with that league then the long term costs might not be worth it. I think we've entered a time period when conferences have figured out that shorter term deals are better for negotiations and the B1G is probably not going back to the old way, but more than that there's no guarantee that the B1G would continue to partner with ESPN past the expiration date of one contract. The league could just as easily take their newfound ACC schools and sign with someone else.

I think ESPN has a long term interest in maintaining the ACC. The problem will be paying those schools enough so that they don't have wandering eyes. Getting Notre Dame to go all in will be key so I think eliminating the Big 12 has got to be high on the priority list so that we can move steadily in the direction of a CFP format with no options for an independent team.

No new SWC for Texas and no outlet for ND. I think that's got to be ESPN's play. That means the ACC needs value and more TX schools have to be accounted for.

I would suggest something like this...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the SEC

TCU, Houston, and West Virginia move to the ACC with Notre Dame joining in full.

Contracts are back loaded. GOR's are front loaded. By the time that 1 year remains on a GOR it is essentially meaningless as far as a buyout goes. That is why 2023-4 is the time frame.

So there won't be enough left on the FOX portion of the GOR to worry about. ESPN can still instigate these moves unilaterally. Also I don't think 18 is likely for the SEC unless Texas wants in after OU and OSU have been offered. If we move to 20 it won't be just out of the Big 12. And if we added OU and UT out of the Big 12 I don't think we would expand further unless it was a defensive move.

If we stop at 16 with the OK schools then the question becomes where does ESPN want to move Texas?

UT sliding in as number 16 for the ACC as long as Notre Dame joins up would work fine numbers wise and money wise, but I don't see UT wanting to make that move by themselves. The PAC won't offer a lot of money and the B1G has too many innate disadvantages. A rebuilt SWC probably wouldn't fly either. The money wouldn't be that great and exposure would be limited.

If Texas doesn't choose the SEC then they'll lose some of their stature in the long term given that all their major regional rivals would have left town.

It would be simpler to scrap a few of the Big 12 schools and build a new league around Texas and Oklahoma using a few ACC schools than it would be to divide the Big 12. Geographically speaking, it would be more cohesive. That and ESPN maintains total control over the ACC so voiding their GOR early wouldn't be a big deal as long as they were retaining control over the properties.

I don't think using ACC schools to lure in the Big Ten is likely to pay off. For one, I don't think there would be a great number of desirable ACC schools that would have as their highest priority to make that move. Two, there's no guarantee the B1G would stay loyal to ESPN and they are most definitely going to divide their rights either way.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-11-2018 01:54 PM

(06-11-2018 01:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 10:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 05:21 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think if both Fox and ESPN profited equally from waiving the GOR then they might just do that. I don't see any way they profit equally though.

There's too many moving parts to make every player happy whether that's the networks, the conferences, or all the current Big 12 schools.

I think the only simple solution in all of this would be the absorption of the Big 12, but that carries its own set of issues.

I wouldn't discount, however, that ESPN might be interested in moving more than 4 schools into the SEC from the Big 12 when the 1st Tier rights come up for bid. I think one of their goals will be moving Power 5 content to ESPN+. That will be one of the best ways to guarantee subscriptions for a large number of people who might be willing to stick around all year long.

If the RSN deal goes through with Fox then ESPN is going to have a lot of out of market content to sell online. Ultimately, the price of that service is going to jump if it really takes off. If that happens then the only real gap that ESPN+ will have in its product offerings(as far as popular demand goes) will be Power 5 football and basketball. At that point, the more schools under their umbrella the more content they can move to ESPN+ and guarantee more subs during that portion of the calendar year.

If I had to bet, I think ESPN would rather keep the ACC together in that scenario. The only way ESPN would gain dominion by breaking up the ACC is if they could use ACC properties to secure a contract with the Big Ten. The problem is that the Big Ten has shown a propensity for not playing along so even if ESPN got a more favorable deal with that league then the long term costs might not be worth it. I think we've entered a time period when conferences have figured out that shorter term deals are better for negotiations and the B1G is probably not going back to the old way, but more than that there's no guarantee that the B1G would continue to partner with ESPN past the expiration date of one contract. The league could just as easily take their newfound ACC schools and sign with someone else.

I think ESPN has a long term interest in maintaining the ACC. The problem will be paying those schools enough so that they don't have wandering eyes. Getting Notre Dame to go all in will be key so I think eliminating the Big 12 has got to be high on the priority list so that we can move steadily in the direction of a CFP format with no options for an independent team.

No new SWC for Texas and no outlet for ND. I think that's got to be ESPN's play. That means the ACC needs value and more TX schools have to be accounted for.

I would suggest something like this...

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the SEC

TCU, Houston, and West Virginia move to the ACC with Notre Dame joining in full.

Contracts are back loaded. GOR's are front loaded. By the time that 1 year remains on a GOR it is essentially meaningless as far as a buyout goes. That is why 2023-4 is the time frame.

So there won't be enough left on the FOX portion of the GOR to worry about. ESPN can still instigate these moves unilaterally. Also I don't think 18 is likely for the SEC unless Texas wants in after OU and OSU have been offered. If we move to 20 it won't be just out of the Big 12. And if we added OU and UT out of the Big 12 I don't think we would expand further unless it was a defensive move.

If we stop at 16 with the OK schools then the question becomes where does ESPN want to move Texas?

UT sliding in as number 16 for the ACC as long as Notre Dame joins up would work fine numbers wise and money wise, but I don't see UT wanting to make that move by themselves. The PAC won't offer a lot of money and the B1G has too many innate disadvantages. A rebuilt SWC probably wouldn't fly either. The money wouldn't be that great and exposure would be limited.

If Texas doesn't choose the SEC then they'll lose some of their stature in the long term given that all their major regional rivals would have left town.

It would be simpler to scrap a few of the Big 12 schools and build a new league around Texas and Oklahoma using a few ACC schools than it would be to divide the Big 12. Geographically speaking, it would be more cohesive. That and ESPN maintains total control over the ACC so voiding their GOR early wouldn't be a big deal as long as they were retaining control over the properties.

I don't think using ACC schools to lure in the Big Ten is likely to pay off. For one, I don't think there would be a great number of desirable ACC schools that would have as their highest priority to make that move. Two, there's no guarantee the B1G would stay loyal to ESPN and they are most definitely going to divide their rights either way.

Plain and simple, if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State become the 15th and 16th members of the SEC then Texas is going to need to be included even if they don't want to be included. If we land the Oklahoma's we have Bevo by the horns. I'd say we would have him by something else except he's a steer.

Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Notre Dame would be a foursome to the ACC to go to 18 if Texas simply refused the SEC. The SEC could stand pat at 16.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Hokie Mark - 06-11-2018 01:58 PM

I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-11-2018 02:06 PM

(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Hokie Mark - 06-11-2018 03:57 PM

(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Very close. I don't know that Clemson wants to play Texas that often, and of course a game vs Notre Dame wouldn't count as ACC... but I like the 2 games vs TCU and Baylor. Probably just rotate the other 3. Oh, and the newbies don't get ND.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - BePcr07 - 06-11-2018 04:43 PM

(06-11-2018 03:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Very close. I don't know that Clemson wants to play Texas that often, and of course a game vs Notre Dame wouldn't count as ACC... but I like the 2 games vs TCU and Baylor. Probably just rotate the other 3. Oh, and the newbies don't get ND.

I can’t imagine the “newbies” caring about playing Notre Dame as long as they get to join a power conference


If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Transic_nyc - 06-11-2018 04:54 PM

(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Trying to figure out who goes with Texas Tech to the PAC without OU or UT. I suppose if the Big Ten passes on Kansas and Iowa State they might go west and the last lifeboat available. Farmaggeddon and KU with TT isn't completely bad. Two AAU and two other R1 institutions. The PAC could do much worse than that.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-11-2018 04:59 PM

(06-11-2018 04:54 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Trying to figure out who goes with Texas Tech to the PAC without OU or UT. I suppose if the Big Ten passes on Kansas and Iowa State they might go west and the last lifeboat available. Farmaggeddon and KU with TT isn't completely bad. Two AAU and two other R1 institutions. The PAC could do much worse than that.

At least Kansas is contiguous with Colorado. Iowa State, bless their hearts, are probably a bridge too far.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 06-11-2018 10:17 PM

(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Required games versus Clemson/FSU may be a bit much. How about 5 games, 2 from Texas, 2 with the reconfigured ACC South and 1 in the North.

Also not sold on Baylor over Houston with the way the world is operating right now.


If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Transic_nyc - 06-12-2018 03:46 AM

(06-11-2018 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 04:54 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Trying to figure out who goes with Texas Tech to the PAC without OU or UT. I suppose if the Big Ten passes on Kansas and Iowa State they might go west and the last lifeboat available. Farmaggeddon and KU with TT isn't completely bad. Two AAU and two other R1 institutions. The PAC could do much worse than that.

At least Kansas is contiguous with Colorado. Iowa State, bless their hearts, are probably a bridge too far.

Then it's possible that only two could go to the PAC if there's no space for Iowa State, assuming again that the Big Ten passes on Kansas.

The then-PAC-14 would probably split like this:

Washington State, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Stanford, California

UCLA, USC, Arizona State, Arizona, Colorado, Texas Tech, Kansas

I know the PAC-heads would say that they'd rather stay put than take in Texas Tech. However, I don't think the PAC's position is the same as the Big Ten or the SEC's and if the ACC/SEC strengthen themselves through Big 12 programs then they'll have to do something to keep pace. At least Kansas provides interesting match-ups in basketball. UCLA and Arizona would be home and away games, as they would be the most attractive.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-12-2018 12:52 PM

(06-11-2018 10:17 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Required games versus Clemson/FSU may be a bit much. How about 5 games, 2 from Texas, 2 with the reconfigured ACC South and 1 in the North.

Also not sold on Baylor over Houston with the way the world is operating right now.

Baylor has a total sports Revenue north of 90 million. Houston is south of 55 million and is subsidized. And, there is less issue for a P5 to make the move at this point than a G5, especially if some P5's are left behind.

As for the requirement to rotate Clemson, F.S.U. & N.D. it is simply because Texas would want one major ACC brand on a regular basis. I realize that N.D. is not an ACC member for football but they would meet the UT need. But even if you substituted Virginia and North Carolina for Notre Dame they still get a marquee game each year in the rotation.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 06-12-2018 03:22 PM

I don't see Kansas or Iowa State moving to the Big Ten without a more dynamic addition having been secured.

The B1G's baseline for revenue is going to be pretty high and they'll need a heavy hitter to make it worth their while. If not then they'll turn their attention to the Mid-Atlantic schools and it's entirely possible that's where their attention has been all this time anyway.

I've thought for a while that Kansas is more valuable to the SEC than the Big Ten. The B1G has plenty of basketball powers already and adding KU to the mix won't significantly increase their audience or expand their reach geographically. Combining that with the fact basketball doesn't generate as much revenue and the B1G wouldn't be getting much when you consider the small market.

The B1G needs 2 things...

1. Stronger football content.
2. Large, wealthy markets so they can sell their content even if it's not necessarily the best content.

Kansas would make a decent #2 for the B1G, but I don't see it. And Kansas is a better match than Iowa State despite the fact ISU fits the profile perfectly. I'm not convinced that the B1G is disinterested in Oklahoma, however, but I think their prime targets are on the East Coast...that or Notre Dame.

From the SEC's perspective, Kansas works better because adding to our basketball viewership would be a bigger punch in the arm. That and our alumni base outside the Southeast is not very large. Oklahoma speaks for itself.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 06-12-2018 04:28 PM

(06-11-2018 04:54 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 02:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-11-2018 01:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I wonder if Texas would go for a Notre Dame deal if the ACC took 2 other Texas schools full time? 16 full members plus 2 partial for the ACC.

That may be the most workable arrangement. Baylor and T.C.U. with Texas as a partial.

I think Texas Tech can get into the PAC. That covers all of the Texas P schools and gives the Longhorns an excuse for the move. "We did what was best for the Texas schools." Five ACC games (two of which would be Baylor and T.C.U.) with one being rotated between F.S.U., N.D., and Clemson, and two rotating in general might get her done. Then within the 5 ACC games 2 are in the state of Texas and road games do not exceed 2 a year for the other 3 games. That leaves them 7 games with which to schedule A&M (ESPN's insistence as the excuse), Oklahoma still played in Dallas, 3 patsies, Texas Tech as an OOC PAC game, and one for a Big 10 school of note. That's a schedule they could go for IMO.

Trying to figure out who goes with Texas Tech to the PAC without OU or UT. I suppose if the Big Ten passes on Kansas and Iowa State they might go west and the last lifeboat available. Farmaggeddon and KU with TT isn't completely bad. Two AAU and two other R1 institutions. The PAC could do much worse than that.

A few years ago I did a "Big 12 expansion by the numbers" thread. Your question got me wondering about the Pac-12. I used the same criteria as last time:

Academics
Bowl Game Appearances
NCAA Tourney Appearances
Football Home Game Attendance (2017)
Media Markets

And I added distance as a category.I used distance from PAC-12 headquarters (San Francisco) as a basis.

I used 23 schools: All the Big 12 schools plus: BYU, ND, Houston, SDSU, SMU, Colorado State, NM, UNLV, Tulsa, Rice, Boise, Tulane, and Hawaii

Here is the list:
1. Texas
2. OK
3. BYU
4. OK State
5. ND (ND going west isn't talked about much, but could be a good fit)
6. TCU/WVU (WVU did well in athletic related categories and the distance actually didn't hurt them too much)
8. Houston
9. SDSU
10. Texas Tech
11 SMU
12 Colorado State
13 Kansas
14 Kansas State
15 Iowa State
16 NM
17 Baylor/UNLV
19 Tulsa
20 Rice
21 Boise
22 Tulane
23 Hawaii

If Texas/OK/Ok State/TCU/Baylor/ND (according to your scenario) are already taken, and assuming WVU is too far, legitimate options might be:
BYU (probably not a cultural fit, but they fit otherwise)
Houston
SDSU
Texas Tech
SMU
Colorado St.
Kansas
Kansas St.
Iowa St.

BYU/Houston/SDSU/Texas Tech would be a solid expansion if G5s get promoted. If BYU is too much of a cultural issue, then maybe Tech/Houston/SDSU/Colorado St. or Tech/Houston/SDSU/Kansas. P5 only would have to be Tech/Kansas/KSU/ISU.

If the market model still dominates, then Houston/SDSU/SMU/Kansas gets Houston/San Diego/Dallas/Kansas City.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - OdinFrigg - 06-12-2018 07:46 PM

It is going to be what the B12 can garner for themselves ('23-'25 period) vs what any of the individual B12 schools may do in negotiating with any of the other 4 Power conferences.
Will not having a conference network still be a big issue then, and having residual resentment of the LHN will be sustained?
If the OU-oSu combo gets another power conference offer,
and current dynamics remain similar, I expect those two go together. Texas leaving is more complex because they will have demands. Some of it could be new and unexpected. The BIG and the SEC are not conferences to bend their norms. The BIG expects newbies to go through several years of reduced disbursements before fully incorporated financially.
WVU will go if they get a power offer closer to home. I am not dismissing WVU as a SEC selection, but believe the ACC would be the better logistical and need fit.
KSU, ISU, TCU, and TTU, would be more circumstantial selections, depending on the power conference making the offer and who are the lead school(s). For example, Texas Tech would generate little to no interest by the BIG, but could be fundamental in a PAC12 package expansion.
I suppose where I divert most from some of you guys is when you start advocating 18, 20, or 22 member conferences. OK, one recognizes forthcoming streaming properties; however, the traditional criteria of fitness and synthesizing doesn't disappear.
My experiences in academia, inclusive of engagements with athletics as it relates to admissions and recruitment, activities, remediation programs, counseling and advising and instruction, on a couple of levels; I want to emphasize travel factors do matter. So does class time for student athletes. I've seen women's field hockey teams, for example, travel 700 miles and back in a few vans in a two day period. Such similar circumstances applies to every Olympic-style sport in most places. Contrary to some beliefs, the BIG, SEC, etc., don't just jet all Olympic-style teams all over the country.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 06-12-2018 08:23 PM

(06-12-2018 07:46 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is going to be what the B12 can garner for themselves ('23-'25 period) vs what any of the individual B12 schools may do in negotiating with any of the other 4 Power conferences.
Will not having a conference network still be a big issue then, and having residual resentment of the LHN will be sustained?
If the OU-oSu combo gets another power conference offer,
and current dynamics remain similar, I expect those two go together. Texas leaving is more complex because they will have demands. Some of it could be new and unexpected. The BIG and the SEC are not conferences to bend their norms. The BIG expects newbies to go through several years of reduced disbursements before fully incorporated financially.
WVU will go if they get a power offer closer to home. I am not dismissing WVU as a SEC selection, but believe the ACC would be the better logistical and need fit.
KSU, ISU, TCU, and TTU, would be more circumstantial selections, depending on the power conference making the offer and who are the lead school(s). For example, Texas Tech would generate little to no interest by the BIG, but could be fundamental in a PAC12 package expansion.
I suppose where I divert most from some of you guys is when you start advocating 18, 20, or 22 member conferences. OK, one recognizes forthcoming streaming properties; however, the traditional criteria of fitness and synthesizing doesn't disappear.
My experiences in academia, inclusive of engagements with athletics as it relates to admissions and recruitment, activities, remediation programs, counseling and advising and instruction, on a couple of levels; I want to emphasize travel factors do matter. So does class time for student athletes. I've seen women's field hockey teams, for example, travel 700 miles and back in a few vans in a two day period. Such similar circumstances applies to every Olympic-style sport in most places. Contrary to some beliefs, the BIG, SEC, etc., don't just jet all Olympic-style teams all over the country.

I don't think you are off base with any of that. I do think if we could get the right 2 schools the SEC would stop at 16. We might even do that with the pair of Oklahoma schools.

The Big 10 may wait until 2034 and make a run at two of Boston College, Syracuse an Notre Dame, possibly even another.

But your practical experience and hands on knowledge are why my hunch is that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State get their SEC invitations in hand and then Texas decides to Horn in to be with rivals their fan base cares about and in a division of the SEC where most minor sports are within a reasonable travel distance. It is why I don't see them in the PAC or Big 10, and likely not in the ACC unless they could take a goodly number of buddies with them.

You say that 20 is impractical. It is if you think of it as a conference. But if you think in terms of a division being an old conference and a conference being a league then it is not. Even play among the 20 is relatively easy to handle even within the confines of 4 years to play everyone.

Let's say hypothetically that Texas does want in and with them Texas Tech is the price of the Horn's consent.

Is a three division conference really that bad?

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

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

You play 5 divisional games and rotate 2 schools from each of the other 2 divisions every year. If your rival isn't in your division you play them as one of your OOC games. If you have no rival in the conference you still have an OOC game with which to schedule them. Considering your home and home basketball series would be confined to your division that would comprise 10 games in a 22 game conference schedule. The conference basketball tournament could simply take the top 12 finishing schools each year. Ditto for the baseball tournament. Olympic sports would play home and home for all meets and events. Conference events (track & field / swimming & diving) would be held in rotating location so that travel wasn't extensive for some schools every year.

At 20 it still works.

While I find 16 to be practical and most likely configuration to maximize revenue.
If a huge prize like Texas wanted in 18 could work. It would work a lot better in 3 divisions of 6 but it could work at 9 schools each in two divisions too.

So, I think you are correct that 16 will be the most comfortable move the conference could make, I'm merely saying that 18 is not unreasonable or beyond doing if the prize is right. Besides if Texas want's to accommodate Tech I can easily see them remaining aloof until Oklahoma gets State in and then they push for the same terms to get Tech in. Then they could always say that only joined the SEC to take care of another state school. I've frequently contended that all Texas would need to join the SEC is a good excuse.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 06-13-2018 12:05 AM

Another advantage that the SEC has is that we don't tend to sponsor as many sports. This alone reduces travel costs. This fits pretty closely with the Big 12 model so there's less incongruence when you match the two of them up.

On the topic of numbers, I actually think 20 becomes an optimal number as we move more into the Midwest and Southwest. Travel is one of the reasons why.

Having made the trip from the heart of SEC country to College Station, I can tell you that it's a haul. If we're expanding into that region and we already have then it makes sense to create divisions that allow those schools to have reasonably close travel partners.

Most of the SEC schools are actually pretty close to one another and within easy driving distance. Some of the more recent additions are further from the core of the conference so it can create issues for travel. The best way to mitigate travel is to make sure long trips aren't required more than necessary. Make them a little more sparing and a multi-regional league can work just fine.

Even then, I'm not super high on Texas Tech. Lubbock is not a short trip for anyone so I'd prefer TCU if for no more reason than it's a heck of a lot easier to get to.

If we looked at 20 then we could do this...

Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia

That breaks down into 4 pretty concise divisions.

West: Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas
Central: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss
South: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

You also have the added benefit of ensuring an even distribution of home and away games within each division in the event we go to 9 conference games.