(01-27-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?

My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.

If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.

If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.

If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.

While the SEC is 1st in average revenue, the Big 12 is 3rd in average revenue. We won't have access to the 2nd best product...the Big Ten, but we will have an ability to absorb valuable parts of the 3rd best product.

I think we have to look at this in terms of consolidating revenue earning potential. The Big 12 schools do, after all, dominate their region.

From the other thread on revenue:

Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447

Total: $1,128,257,788

Average Per Team: $112,825,779

-------------------------------------------

Now, Texas and Oklahoma are obviously the big dogs, but let's look at the averages when you remove UT and OU:

$94,773,582.5

So, nearly a $20M per team difference when you add in UT and OU.

The most interesting thing about these numbers to me is that's roughly the ACC average when you include all of their top schools. Remove a couple of top revenue producers from the ACC and things look fairly dire.

ACC averages:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224

Total: $1,327,372,397

Average Per Team: $94,812,314

The only school in the ACC that is currently generating more than our average is Florida State, but we won't be cracking the ACC for a while assuming it ever happens.

It's fair to consider that the ACC will get a boost from the ACC Network, but no such boost will be coming for Big 12 schools because their content will never be bundled. So their 3rd tier contracts are more varied than what the ACC will be bringing forth.

BUT...any 3rd tier deal for the SEC would be more valuable if it contained some Big 12 schools because the inventory would be larger if for no other reason.

Let me suggest that part of the reason the Big 12 is on the chopping block is because their pieces are the more valuable ones. The other factors have been discussed, and they are certainly relevant, but considering the ACC is at the bottom of revenue then I think it's fair to say that very little of the ACC product would actually add value to the SEC or anyone else.

When a company wants to acquire new properties in the same industry, do they go all out for the ones that are weaker or do they try to "merge" with the ones that will combine for greater marketshare?

There are a lot of reasons the Big 12 is not doing well, but I think the networks have not done much to solidify the foundation of the league because it would be easier to absorb its value. The Big 12's unique situation with regard to its small markets doesn't really detract from its quality of content. What the Big 12 needs is access to better audiences rather than a wholesale dismembering.

The ACC would be harder to digest and so perhaps that is one of the key reasons ESPN has spent more time trying to strengthen it when it would have been easier to tear it apart.

Personally, I think we should go for about 6 schools from the Big 12. The Texahoma 4 is probably the best starting point. I think Kansas should be in there. Not sure who the 6th should be other than West Virginia is probably needed by the ACC.

The 1st tier is stronger with Texas and Oklahoma aboard, that is obvious. I think our 2nd and 3rd tier is stronger with a few others aboard.

---------------------------------------------

For reference, the numbers of the SEC:

SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651

Total: $1,926,694,856

Average Per Team: $137,621,061

Okay, let's say the first 5 are Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. Who's next? I see no need of Baylor or T.C.U. if we have the 3 state Texas schools.

I would favor Iowa State. Kansas might want KState salvaged and that could be an impasse. But since I don't think the Big 10 would take Kansas by their lonesome, I think Kansas joins with their buds.

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri could form a division.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech could form the other.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee and Vanderbilt the 3rd.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina the 4th.


But the optimum solution would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas.

(01-28-2019 12:06 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the SEC goes to 16 then I'd expect the ACC to do the same (by adding WVU and ND for football).

If the SEC adds 4 teams (Texas, Tx Tech, OU and either Kansas or OSU) to go to 18 then I could see the ACC adding WVU, TCU and Baylor (in addition to ND). JMO.

NOTE: That's also 7 teams - just one short of the number to dissolve the Big XII conference...

(01-27-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?

My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.

If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.

If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.

If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.

While the SEC is 1st in average revenue, the Big 12 is 3rd in average revenue. We won't have access to the 2nd best product...the Big Ten, but we will have an ability to absorb valuable parts of the 3rd best product.

I think we have to look at this in terms of consolidating revenue earning potential. The Big 12 schools do, after all, dominate their region.

From the other thread on revenue:

Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447

Total: $1,128,257,788

Average Per Team: $112,825,779

-------------------------------------------

Now, Texas and Oklahoma are obviously the big dogs, but let's look at the averages when you remove UT and OU:

$94,773,582.5

So, nearly a $20M per team difference when you add in UT and OU.

The most interesting thing about these numbers to me is that's roughly the ACC average when you include all of their top schools. Remove a couple of top revenue producers from the ACC and things look fairly dire.

ACC averages:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224

Total: $1,327,372,397

Average Per Team: $94,812,314

The only school in the ACC that is currently generating more than our average is Florida State, but we won't be cracking the ACC for a while assuming it ever happens.

It's fair to consider that the ACC will get a boost from the ACC Network, but no such boost will be coming for Big 12 schools because their content will never be bundled. So their 3rd tier contracts are more varied than what the ACC will be bringing forth.

BUT...any 3rd tier deal for the SEC would be more valuable if it contained some Big 12 schools because the inventory would be larger if for no other reason.

Let me suggest that part of the reason the Big 12 is on the chopping block is because their pieces are the more valuable ones. The other factors have been discussed, and they are certainly relevant, but considering the ACC is at the bottom of revenue then I think it's fair to say that very little of the ACC product would actually add value to the SEC or anyone else.

When a company wants to acquire new properties in the same industry, do they go all out for the ones that are weaker or do they try to "merge" with the ones that will combine for greater marketshare?

There are a lot of reasons the Big 12 is not doing well, but I think the networks have not done much to solidify the foundation of the league because it would be easier to absorb its value. The Big 12's unique situation with regard to its small markets doesn't really detract from its quality of content. What the Big 12 needs is access to better audiences rather than a wholesale dismembering.

The ACC would be harder to digest and so perhaps that is one of the key reasons ESPN has spent more time trying to strengthen it when it would have been easier to tear it apart.

Personally, I think we should go for about 6 schools from the Big 12. The Texahoma 4 is probably the best starting point. I think Kansas should be in there. Not sure who the 6th should be other than West Virginia is probably needed by the ACC.

The 1st tier is stronger with Texas and Oklahoma aboard, that is obvious. I think our 2nd and 3rd tier is stronger with a few others aboard.

---------------------------------------------

For reference, the numbers of the SEC:

SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651

Total: $1,926,694,856

Average Per Team: $137,621,061

Okay, let's say the first 5 are Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. Who's next? I see no need of Baylor or T.C.U. if we have the 3 state Texas schools.

I would favor Iowa State. Kansas might want KState salvaged and that could be an impasse. But since I don't think the Big 10 would take Kansas by their lonesome, I think Kansas joins with their buds.

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri could form a division.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech could form the other.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee and Vanderbilt the 3rd.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina the 4th.


But the optimum solution would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas.

(01-28-2019 11:10 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?

My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.

If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.

If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.

If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.

While the SEC is 1st in average revenue, the Big 12 is 3rd in average revenue. We won't have access to the 2nd best product...the Big Ten, but we will have an ability to absorb valuable parts of the 3rd best product.

I think we have to look at this in terms of consolidating revenue earning potential. The Big 12 schools do, after all, dominate their region.

From the other thread on revenue:

Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447

Total: $1,128,257,788

Average Per Team: $112,825,779

-------------------------------------------

Now, Texas and Oklahoma are obviously the big dogs, but let's look at the averages when you remove UT and OU:

$94,773,582.5

So, nearly a $20M per team difference when you add in UT and OU.

The most interesting thing about these numbers to me is that's roughly the ACC average when you include all of their top schools. Remove a couple of top revenue producers from the ACC and things look fairly dire.

ACC averages:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224

Total: $1,327,372,397

Average Per Team: $94,812,314

The only school in the ACC that is currently generating more than our average is Florida State, but we won't be cracking the ACC for a while assuming it ever happens.

It's fair to consider that the ACC will get a boost from the ACC Network, but no such boost will be coming for Big 12 schools because their content will never be bundled. So their 3rd tier contracts are more varied than what the ACC will be bringing forth.

BUT...any 3rd tier deal for the SEC would be more valuable if it contained some Big 12 schools because the inventory would be larger if for no other reason.

Let me suggest that part of the reason the Big 12 is on the chopping block is because their pieces are the more valuable ones. The other factors have been discussed, and they are certainly relevant, but considering the ACC is at the bottom of revenue then I think it's fair to say that very little of the ACC product would actually add value to the SEC or anyone else.

When a company wants to acquire new properties in the same industry, do they go all out for the ones that are weaker or do they try to "merge" with the ones that will combine for greater marketshare?

There are a lot of reasons the Big 12 is not doing well, but I think the networks have not done much to solidify the foundation of the league because it would be easier to absorb its value. The Big 12's unique situation with regard to its small markets doesn't really detract from its quality of content. What the Big 12 needs is access to better audiences rather than a wholesale dismembering.

The ACC would be harder to digest and so perhaps that is one of the key reasons ESPN has spent more time trying to strengthen it when it would have been easier to tear it apart.

Personally, I think we should go for about 6 schools from the Big 12. The Texahoma 4 is probably the best starting point. I think Kansas should be in there. Not sure who the 6th should be other than West Virginia is probably needed by the ACC.

The 1st tier is stronger with Texas and Oklahoma aboard, that is obvious. I think our 2nd and 3rd tier is stronger with a few others aboard.

---------------------------------------------

For reference, the numbers of the SEC:

SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651

Total: $1,926,694,856

Average Per Team: $137,621,061

Okay, let's say the first 5 are Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. Who's next? I see no need of Baylor or T.C.U. if we have the 3 state Texas schools.

I would favor Iowa State. Kansas might want KState salvaged and that could be an impasse. But since I don't think the Big 10 would take Kansas by their lonesome, I think Kansas joins with their buds.

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri could form a division.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech could form the other.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee and Vanderbilt the 3rd.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina the 4th.


But the optimum solution would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas.

At that point we have 5 of the original Big 8. I've seen on here talks about Colorado to the Big 10, but I might start wondering about Colorado in the SEC at the point. And then the possibility of poaching Nebraska would give us 7 of the 8 (no Kansas State) and 3 of the 4 Texas schools (no Baylor) that created the Big 12.

Crazy talk I'm sure, but 88 pages into this thread, crazy starts making sense.

If we got Nebraska and Colorado, we'd need 2 more to make it work. (If we got 1 of the two, I still like 3x7 for a 21 team conference,, with one of the divisions being the Old Big 8 schools all together.)

If we assume the ACC is off limits, then perhaps the SEC starts looking to poach more from the Big 10? The old Indiana to the SEC stuff? Or Purdue? Purdue vs. Vandy as a conference game could be fun, but probably doesn't bring much value to the table. So maybe its Maryland?

Or maybe we look west and take Arizona or Arizona State? Or at that point check in USC? I really don't know. That would be 12 from the "west" ( 7 Big 8 schools + 3 Texas + the Arizona schools) on one side of the conference, and the original SEC 12 in the "east."

(Yes, I know I'm getting ridiculous, but the the main idea I'm trying to present is the idea of a Big 8 reunion in the SEC).

(01-28-2019 05:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think keeping the numbers divisible by 4 is the best way to go for the purpose of flexibility. Whether that's 16, 20, or 24...we've got a number that allows us to adapt to different formats.

I think 18 is a solid number if we're looking at 3 divisions or a division-less setup, but when it comes to odd numbers like 15 or 21 then the water gets murky.

One of the main reasons I don't mind expanding into the Midwest despite the geography is because, culturally speaking, they approach college sports the same way we do.

The PAC has a starkly different culture as well as schools in the Northeast. Even some of the Southern schools on the East Coast are a different in their approach. Much of the territory belonging to the Big Ten is more infatuated with their pro sports and so the number of top programs isn't as proportional to their population. That and the Big Ten is strong so cracking that nut would be very hard to do. You go into some of these Plains states, however, and it's not that different and they're available.

In my earlier post I alluded to the idea that Big 12 schools just need better audiences. I think that's the crux of it. The quality of content is pretty good and the fan bases are strong, but the markets just aren't as big as you find in some other leagues. Make some of the fans in the South and East watch a few more games and their value should increase.

Add to that, it's too Texas-centric. I don't necessarily mean UT...it's just that everyone in that league has to go to TX to get players. They have to rely on audiences in TX to watch their games. It's a strain on the product even if it's above average in quality.

To be honest, I think that's part of the reason we partnered with them on the Sugar Bowl instead of the ACC. We have the basketball challenge as well and that's mostly for TV, but it's a good way to market both leagues to a wider audience.

I think the biggest problem with only looking at Texas and Oklahoma, even though it would obviously be the most efficient move profit-wise, is that part of the value of those schools is tied up in their annual competitors. Part of Oklahoma's identity is in the Big 8 and part of Texas' identity is in the SWC. The 2nd problem to me is if we get to a point where we're culling too many Power schools then we're going to reduce TV ratings because we will have reduced the number of interested parties. Dropping a few programs from the Big East or SWC wasn't that big of a deal because most of those programs didn't have decent fan bases. Their fan support was much more in-line with their current conference mates.

College sports is not built on the same premise as pro sports. It's not just about the market size and the convenience of attending events. It's about the teams that represent communities and those communities are not centered in large metro areas for the most part. They are centered in everyday towns and cities that are dominated by fans loyal to their favorite college. There's certainly some overlap between the two types of fans, but they are not 100% the same.

(01-28-2019 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2019 05:03 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think keeping the numbers divisible by 4 is the best way to go for the purpose of flexibility. Whether that's 16, 20, or 24...we've got a number that allows us to adapt to different formats.

I think 18 is a solid number if we're looking at 3 divisions or a division-less setup, but when it comes to odd numbers like 15 or 21 then the water gets murky.

One of the main reasons I don't mind expanding into the Midwest despite the geography is because, culturally speaking, they approach college sports the same way we do.

The PAC has a starkly different culture as well as schools in the Northeast. Even some of the Southern schools on the East Coast are a different in their approach. Much of the territory belonging to the Big Ten is more infatuated with their pro sports and so the number of top programs isn't as proportional to their population. That and the Big Ten is strong so cracking that nut would be very hard to do. You go into some of these Plains states, however, and it's not that different and they're available.

In my earlier post I alluded to the idea that Big 12 schools just need better audiences. I think that's the crux of it. The quality of content is pretty good and the fan bases are strong, but the markets just aren't as big as you find in some other leagues. Make some of the fans in the South and East watch a few more games and their value should increase.

Add to that, it's too Texas-centric. I don't necessarily mean UT...it's just that everyone in that league has to go to TX to get players. They have to rely on audiences in TX to watch their games. It's a strain on the product even if it's above average in quality.

To be honest, I think that's part of the reason we partnered with them on the Sugar Bowl instead of the ACC. We have the basketball challenge as well and that's mostly for TV, but it's a good way to market both leagues to a wider audience.

I think the biggest problem with only looking at Texas and Oklahoma, even though it would obviously be the most efficient move profit-wise, is that part of the value of those schools is tied up in their annual competitors. Part of Oklahoma's identity is in the Big 8 and part of Texas' identity is in the SWC. The 2nd problem to me is if we get to a point where we're culling too many Power schools then we're going to reduce TV ratings because we will have reduced the number of interested parties. Dropping a few programs from the Big East or SWC wasn't that big of a deal because most of those programs didn't have decent fan bases. Their fan support was much more in-line with their current conference mates.

College sports is not built on the same premise as pro sports. It's not just about the market size and the convenience of attending events. It's about the teams that represent communities and those communities are not centered in large metro areas for the most part. They are centered in everyday towns and cities that are dominated by fans loyal to their favorite college. There's certainly some overlap between the two types of fans, but they are not 100% the same.

So are you still good with the Texa-homa 4 plus ISU and Kansas?

(01-30-2019 12:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Please understand I am not trying to be cynical or contrary. I follow the playful, yet thoughtful, models presented by the majority of you. I understand opportunities opening, competitiveness, and the importance of broadcasting contracts.
What is being delivered is a lot of PROCESS. What's being implied, is to have fewer, but much larger power conferences. So, the desire is to have 4, maybe even just 3, super-duper conferences. Some take it to just 2 or even one, as truly elite. All else is tiered downwards. OK, there can be structurally and process arguments there. But what is the GOAL or the ultimate OUTCOME sought? Stability? Major revenue enhancements? Narrowing the elite club, but why? Giving corporate media, one that is more monopolized, greater control of conferences in exchange for greater payouts? That last one is not necessarily a cause-effect matter, particularly for the long term. Never relinquish permanent negotiating power in exchange for a dated financial set-up.

I am not opposed to the SEC moving to 16 if a couple of real jewels come their way. Stop there! Not every school with fortitude belongs in the SEC. Who is the SEC going to compete against? The rust belt, northeast, and west coast? It doesn't make sense for an extreme, one-sided model, whereby competition is more incestuous than external.
And a season in any college sport have definitive available days to compete. Many here want to extend conference games, add more games for playoffs, etc. There's a point in which absurdity, impractically, and logistical dysfunction are reached.
Again, my point is not focused on individual posters; and I realize I am inviting further disagreement. But having unlimited parameters when it comes to expansion needs a plausible rationale that isn't sufficiently defended, let alone clarified.
If I am totally confused, perhaps I am if there is a global perspective I've missed. It just looks like more hurt for many schools, and the favored may be jumping into an arena not knowing how or when the lions come out.

(01-30-2019 12:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Please understand I am not trying to be cynical or contrary. I follow the playful, yet thoughtful, models presented by the majority of you. I understand opportunities opening, competitiveness, and the importance of broadcasting contracts.
What is being delivered is a lot of PROCESS. What's being implied, is to have fewer, but much larger power conferences. So, the desire is to have 4, maybe even just 3, super-duper conferences. Some take it to just 2 or even one, as truly elite. All else is tiered downwards. OK, there can be structurally and process arguments there. But what is the GOAL or the ultimate OUTCOME sought? Stability? Major revenue enhancements? Narrowing the elite club, but why? Giving corporate media, one that is more monopolized, greater control of conferences in exchange for greater payouts? That last one is not necessarily a cause-effect matter, particularly for the long term. Never relinquish permanent negotiating power in exchange for a dated financial set-up.

I am not opposed to the SEC moving to 16 if a couple of real jewels come their way. Stop there! Not every school with fortitude belongs in the SEC. Who is the SEC going to compete against? The rust belt, northeast, and west coast? It doesn't make sense for an extreme, one-sided model, whereby competition is more incestuous than external.
And a season in any college sport have definitive available days to compete. Many here want to extend conference games, add more games for playoffs, etc. There's a point in which absurdity, impractically, and logistical dysfunction are reached.
Again, my point is not focused on individual posters; and I realize I am inviting further disagreement. But having unlimited parameters when it comes to expansion needs a plausible rationale that isn't sufficiently defended, let alone clarified.
If I am totally confused, perhaps I am if there is a global perspective I've missed. It just looks like more hurt for many schools, and the favored may be jumping into an arena not knowing how or when the lions come out.

(01-30-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 12:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Please understand I am not trying to be cynical or contrary. I follow the playful, yet thoughtful, models presented by the majority of you. I understand opportunities opening, competitiveness, and the importance of broadcasting contracts.
What is being delivered is a lot of PROCESS. What's being implied, is to have fewer, but much larger power conferences. So, the desire is to have 4, maybe even just 3, super-duper conferences. Some take it to just 2 or even one, as truly elite. All else is tiered downwards. OK, there can be structurally and process arguments there. But what is the GOAL or the ultimate OUTCOME sought? Stability? Major revenue enhancements? Narrowing the elite club, but why? Giving corporate media, one that is more monopolized, greater control of conferences in exchange for greater payouts? That last one is not necessarily a cause-effect matter, particularly for the long term. Never relinquish permanent negotiating power in exchange for a dated financial set-up.

I am not opposed to the SEC moving to 16 if a couple of real jewels come their way. Stop there! Not every school with fortitude belongs in the SEC. Who is the SEC going to compete against? The rust belt, northeast, and west coast? It doesn't make sense for an extreme, one-sided model, whereby competition is more incestuous than external.
And a season in any college sport have definitive available days to compete. Many here want to extend conference games, add more games for playoffs, etc. There's a point in which absurdity, impractically, and logistical dysfunction are reached.
Again, my point is not focused on individual posters; and I realize I am inviting further disagreement. But having unlimited parameters when it comes to expansion needs a plausible rationale that isn't sufficiently defended, let alone clarified.
If I am totally confused, perhaps I am if there is a global perspective I've missed. It just looks like more hurt for many schools, and the favored may be jumping into an arena not knowing how or when the lions come out.

I hear ya! Kramer and the presidents soaked all of that in when discussing what would become the '92 realignment.

Based on their conclusions they wanted to expand into the similar culture of the Southwest. The wanted brand consolidation for the sake of the SEC in the Southeast.

So nearly 30 years ago they saw Florida State and Clemson as the brand consolidating schools. Looking at the present day situation I'd have to say they were dead on target. Would there be any argument over the SEC's domination of the Southeast if those two schools were in the SEC? ESPN realized this too and that is why they need those two schools to hold enough value in the ACC to keep it together.

Texas, A&M and Oklahoma were on the target list way back then, as was what was a healthier Arkansas.

Plans? L.S.U. had been a historic rival of A&M. Arkansas was a bridge to Texas. The concept was that if you had Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and A&M you owned everything of value in the SWC (OU being Big 8). Add Clemson and Florida State to that mix and the SEC not only dominates its region, but expands that reason with huge markets in the Arkansas/Oklahoma/Texas region which due to their proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana seemed to be a natural way to expand. Much more natural than moving North of Kentucky or into Virginia. I'd have to say that the SEC has long eyeballed North Carolina.

There's your most likely, and rational targets. But we've been forced to amend our growth. South Carolina was taken as #2 to Arkansas because it was seen as a potential bridge to North Carolina. So the Gamecocks took Clemson's spot in the original plan to 16. We landed Arkansas and A&M. The odd add was Missouri but the Tigers were seen as a potential market add and the cornerstone of the Northwest boundary of the SEC. They've essentially taken Florida State's slot.

The game for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Texas and the reason is not just adding two brands (although that's certainly a part) but rather owning the most SEC like brands in the region to maintain Conference Identity and Conference Quality.

Iowa State doesn't do that and historically they haven't really been that close to Texas. The same may be said of Kansas.

Just as it became apparent that as long as the SEC's rights were held by ESPN we wouldn't be financially rewarded for taking Clemson and F.S.U. now that 30 years has passed and Texas Tech has grown so much (same with Ok. St.) we may have to alter our perfect model of expansion to the West.

If we hold to 16 that 16 may now have to be Texas and Texas Tech. It fits better with the original plan than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for the intention to dominate the branding with SEC like schools. OU and OSU leave us without domination in the region in which we most need it, Texas.

Personally speaking the original plan was prescient both for the content model we are moving into, and for the maximizing of ad rates if advertisers wanted to reach the Southeast/Southwest, and in terms of those markets and their size.

It should be very apparent right now that South Carolina is not Clemson and that if the SEC was going to dominate the other massive market, Florida, we needed F.S.U. paired with the Gators to do it.

I think 16 is about right as well when it comes to profitability. Would Texas and Oklahoma abandon Tech and State to join? I'm not sure they would. Would the SEC be way ahead of the rest with both of those and would going to 18 to insure it be prudent? In the long haul, yes. Is there more money in going to 20 or more? Right now, and out of the Big 12, no.

Are times slow and any conversation and speculation welcomed? Yes.

Is there anyway to move to 20 and be profitable? Maybe.

I'd say if #19 & #20 were Duke and North Carolina that such a move market wise, academically, and as a content multiplier for hoops could very well be profitable.

(01-30-2019 07:12 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 12:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Please understand I am not trying to be cynical or contrary. I follow the playful, yet thoughtful, models presented by the majority of you. I understand opportunities opening, competitiveness, and the importance of broadcasting contracts.
What is being delivered is a lot of PROCESS. What's being implied, is to have fewer, but much larger power conferences. So, the desire is to have 4, maybe even just 3, super-duper conferences. Some take it to just 2 or even one, as truly elite. All else is tiered downwards. OK, there can be structurally and process arguments there. But what is the GOAL or the ultimate OUTCOME sought? Stability? Major revenue enhancements? Narrowing the elite club, but why? Giving corporate media, one that is more monopolized, greater control of conferences in exchange for greater payouts? That last one is not necessarily a cause-effect matter, particularly for the long term. Never relinquish permanent negotiating power in exchange for a dated financial set-up.

I am not opposed to the SEC moving to 16 if a couple of real jewels come their way. Stop there! Not every school with fortitude belongs in the SEC. Who is the SEC going to compete against? The rust belt, northeast, and west coast? It doesn't make sense for an extreme, one-sided model, whereby competition is more incestuous than external.
And a season in any college sport have definitive available days to compete. Many here want to extend conference games, add more games for playoffs, etc. There's a point in which absurdity, impractically, and logistical dysfunction are reached.
Again, my point is not focused on individual posters; and I realize I am inviting further disagreement. But having unlimited parameters when it comes to expansion needs a plausible rationale that isn't sufficiently defended, let alone clarified.
If I am totally confused, perhaps I am if there is a global perspective I've missed. It just looks like more hurt for many schools, and the favored may be jumping into an arena not knowing how or when the lions come out.

I hear ya! Kramer and the presidents soaked all of that in when discussing what would become the '92 realignment.

Based on their conclusions they wanted to expand into the similar culture of the Southwest. The wanted brand consolidation for the sake of the SEC in the Southeast.

So nearly 30 years ago they saw Florida State and Clemson as the brand consolidating schools. Looking at the present day situation I'd have to say they were dead on target. Would there be any argument over the SEC's domination of the Southeast if those two schools were in the SEC? ESPN realized this too and that is why they need those two schools to hold enough value in the ACC to keep it together.

Texas, A&M and Oklahoma were on the target list way back then, as was what was a healthier Arkansas.

Plans? L.S.U. had been a historic rival of A&M. Arkansas was a bridge to Texas. The concept was that if you had Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and A&M you owned everything of value in the SWC (OU being Big 8). Add Clemson and Florida State to that mix and the SEC not only dominates its region, but expands that reason with huge markets in the Arkansas/Oklahoma/Texas region which due to their proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana seemed to be a natural way to expand. Much more natural than moving North of Kentucky or into Virginia. I'd have to say that the SEC has long eyeballed North Carolina.

There's your most likely, and rational targets. But we've been forced to amend our growth. South Carolina was taken as #2 to Arkansas because it was seen as a potential bridge to North Carolina. So the Gamecocks took Clemson's spot in the original plan to 16. We landed Arkansas and A&M. The odd add was Missouri but the Tigers were seen as a potential market add and the cornerstone of the Northwest boundary of the SEC. They've essentially taken Florida State's slot.

The game for the SEC is still Oklahoma and Texas and the reason is not just adding two brands (although that's certainly a part) but rather owning the most SEC like brands in the region to maintain Conference Identity and Conference Quality.

Iowa State doesn't do that and historically they haven't really been that close to Texas. The same may be said of Kansas.

Just as it became apparent that as long as the SEC's rights were held by ESPN we wouldn't be financially rewarded for taking Clemson and F.S.U. now that 30 years has passed and Texas Tech has grown so much (same with Ok. St.) we may have to alter our perfect model of expansion to the West.

If we hold to 16 that 16 may now have to be Texas and Texas Tech. It fits better with the original plan than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for the intention to dominate the branding with SEC like schools. OU and OSU leave us without domination in the region in which we most need it, Texas.

Personally speaking the original plan was prescient both for the content model we are moving into, and for the maximizing of ad rates if advertisers wanted to reach the Southeast/Southwest, and in terms of those markets and their size.

It should be very apparent right now that South Carolina is not Clemson and that if the SEC was going to dominate the other massive market, Florida, we needed F.S.U. paired with the Gators to do it.

I think 16 is about right as well when it comes to profitability. Would Texas and Oklahoma abandon Tech and State to join? I'm not sure they would. Would the SEC be way ahead of the rest with both of those and would going to 18 to insure it be prudent? In the long haul, yes. Is there more money in going to 20 or more? Right now, and out of the Big 12, no.

Are times slow and any conversation and speculation welcomed? Yes.

Is there anyway to move to 20 and be profitable? Maybe.

I'd say if #19 & #20 were Duke and North Carolina that such a move market wise, academically, and as a content multiplier for hoops could very well be profitable.

Would those two have to come as a pair? (Its the same kind of thinking as Texas/Tech/OSU/OK)

If not, then perhaps we could mix and match and grab Kansas as 19 with UNC or Duke as 20. That would keep us from having to take Iowa State as 20 if we truly were/are interested in Kansas.

Then again, if we are just taking one school from each market we don't really need Tech or OSU, so we could just have Texas and OK and stop at 16.

So maybe the question is: if we take Texas and OK and stop at 16, is there still value in expanding to 18-20 later with ACC properties?

And again, at that point would we just revisit Clemson/FSU or would we still actually consider UNC/Duke over those two? Would Virginia Tech still be in the mix? What about NC State? Would we consider Louisville or other ACC properties? GT/Virginia/Pitt/Miami?

With 2 spots, I would think it would have to be two of UNC/Duke/Clemson/FSU
At 4 spots, I could see considering more properties, but would think it would still come down to those four. Which is odd, since I would think Virginia Tech would bring enough to the table, but I guess the times are changing.

(02-18-2019 06:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's a PAC 12 Guy who seems to think that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is a very viable possibility.


https://fishduck.com/2019/02/oregon-in-the-pac-12-time-to-flee-for-our-lives/

(02-22-2019 08:06 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 06:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's a PAC 12 Guy who seems to think that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is a very viable possibility.


https://fishduck.com/2019/02/oregon-in-the-pac-12-time-to-flee-for-our-lives/

Those PAC12 folks are getting frustrated with their leadership.

UT and OU being SEC "prospects" is a given in the next expansion round. Saying "viable", would apply, but we are a few years before "confirmable" can be rationally declared, pre-contract.

I have a hunch the ultimate picks will become focused and obvious when time draws near. I doubt there will be an appetizing smorgasbord of schools to pick from. There isn't much now that looks really enticing beyond the B12's top two, maybe three.

UT can be predictable in that they can flirt with multiple, self-generated proposals, plus external offers, then backtrack, by changing their minds or through a denial(s). OU would prefer and Okie State move with them. That limits one, maybe two, options.

The PAC12, several years back, turned down an OU/oSu move. That was short-sighted. Had that happened, the PAC12 would be in better shape today. They may not get that opportunity again.

(02-22-2019 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:06 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 06:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's a PAC 12 Guy who seems to think that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is a very viable possibility.


https://fishduck.com/2019/02/oregon-in-the-pac-12-time-to-flee-for-our-lives/

Those PAC12 folks are getting frustrated with their leadership.

UT and OU being SEC "prospects" is a given in the next expansion round. Saying "viable", would apply, but we are a few years before "confirmable" can be rationally declared, pre-contract.

I have a hunch the ultimate picks will become focused and obvious when time draws near. I doubt there will be an appetizing smorgasbord of schools to pick from. There isn't much now that looks really enticing beyond the B12's top two, maybe three.

UT can be predictable in that they can flirt with multiple, self-generated proposals, plus external offers, then backtrack, by changing their minds or through a denial(s). OU would prefer and Okie State move with them. That limits one, maybe two, options.

The PAC12, several years back, turned down an OU/oSu move. That was short-sighted. Had that happened, the PAC12 would be in better shape today. They may not get that opportunity again.

I look for CBS and the SEC to formalize a new whopper of a deal by 2021. CBS want to lock in and the SEC wants to scoop the 2022 Big 10 renewal. It would also mean that anyone leaving the Big 12 could give their required 2 year notice and the precedent is to play another year and to leave that revenue to cover the last year. If the networks cover the remaining schools revenue until the GOR expires in the 2023-4 season then damage claims for leaving early are essentially mitigated.

If Alston cause Vanderbilt to want to step down in football commitment then we might have 3 full member slots available.

It will make for an interesting next two years.

(02-23-2019 04:42 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:06 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 06:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's a PAC 12 Guy who seems to think that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is a very viable possibility.


https://fishduck.com/2019/02/oregon-in-the-pac-12-time-to-flee-for-our-lives/

Those PAC12 folks are getting frustrated with their leadership.

UT and OU being SEC "prospects" is a given in the next expansion round. Saying "viable", would apply, but we are a few years before "confirmable" can be rationally declared, pre-contract.

I have a hunch the ultimate picks will become focused and obvious when time draws near. I doubt there will be an appetizing smorgasbord of schools to pick from. There isn't much now that looks really enticing beyond the B12's top two, maybe three.

UT can be predictable in that they can flirt with multiple, self-generated proposals, plus external offers, then backtrack, by changing their minds or through a denial(s). OU would prefer and Okie State move with them. That limits one, maybe two, options.

The PAC12, several years back, turned down an OU/oSu move. That was short-sighted. Had that happened, the PAC12 would be in better shape today. They may not get that opportunity again.

I look for CBS and the SEC to formalize a new whopper of a deal by 2021. CBS want to lock in and the SEC wants to scoop the 2022 Big 10 renewal. It would also mean that anyone leaving the Big 12 could give their required 2 year notice and the precedent is to play another year and to leave that revenue to cover the last year. If the networks cover the remaining schools revenue until the GOR expires in the 2023-4 season then damage claims for leaving early are essentially mitigated.

If Alston cause Vanderbilt to want to step down in football commitment then we might have 3 full member slots available.

It will make for an interesting next two years.

I think we can still safely say that Texas will want Texas Tech in the deal. If we also make a move for Oklahoma and Kansas then we'll pretty much solidify the best package any network could want.

If CBS and ESPN are working on a renegotiation at the same time then I could even see CBS getting a handful more games in the package. ESPN would be getting plenty of extra content anyway. I don't think they'd need every new game to make it worth their while.

I think that's especially true if they figure out a new plan for the LHN. Right now, the LHN makes a pittance with very little distribution. If Texas is in the fold of the SEC then I think it makes the most sense to figure out a long term plan for the network that uses content for the entire conference.

I don't think you could do an SEC Network 2 and have it be just as successful, but I think you could get creative with it. Something that appeals to all the hardcore fans would be the most profitable, i think.

Or perhaps you do a Spanish language version of the SECN?

Perhaps you show content on there other than exclusively SEC events? Something that appeals to the region?

The wildcard here is what does Alston do to the ACC? Do certain schools then get moved into the SEC? What does that do to the value of the ACC Network? Lot of possibilities.

(02-25-2019 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 04:42 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:06 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 06:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Here's a PAC 12 Guy who seems to think that Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC is a very viable possibility.


https://fishduck.com/2019/02/oregon-in-the-pac-12-time-to-flee-for-our-lives/

Those PAC12 folks are getting frustrated with their leadership.

UT and OU being SEC "prospects" is a given in the next expansion round. Saying "viable", would apply, but we are a few years before "confirmable" can be rationally declared, pre-contract.

I have a hunch the ultimate picks will become focused and obvious when time draws near. I doubt there will be an appetizing smorgasbord of schools to pick from. There isn't much now that looks really enticing beyond the B12's top two, maybe three.

UT can be predictable in that they can flirt with multiple, self-generated proposals, plus external offers, then backtrack, by changing their minds or through a denial(s). OU would prefer and Okie State move with them. That limits one, maybe two, options.

The PAC12, several years back, turned down an OU/oSu move. That was short-sighted. Had that happened, the PAC12 would be in better shape today. They may not get that opportunity again.

I look for CBS and the SEC to formalize a new whopper of a deal by 2021. CBS want to lock in and the SEC wants to scoop the 2022 Big 10 renewal. It would also mean that anyone leaving the Big 12 could give their required 2 year notice and the precedent is to play another year and to leave that revenue to cover the last year. If the networks cover the remaining schools revenue until the GOR expires in the 2023-4 season then damage claims for leaving early are essentially mitigated.

If Alston cause Vanderbilt to want to step down in football commitment then we might have 3 full member slots available.

It will make for an interesting next two years.

I think we can still safely say that Texas will want Texas Tech in the deal. If we also make a move for Oklahoma and Kansas then we'll pretty much solidify the best package any network could want.

If CBS and ESPN are working on a renegotiation at the same time then I could even see CBS getting a handful more games in the package. ESPN would be getting plenty of extra content anyway. I don't think they'd need every new game to make it worth their while.

I think that's especially true if they figure out a new plan for the LHN. Right now, the LHN makes a pittance with very little distribution. If Texas is in the fold of the SEC then I think it makes the most sense to figure out a long term plan for the network that uses content for the entire conference.

I don't think you could do an SEC Network 2 and have it be just as successful, but I think you could get creative with it. Something that appeals to all the hardcore fans would be the most profitable, i think.

Or perhaps you do a Spanish language version of the SECN?

Perhaps you show content on there other than exclusively SEC events? Something that appeals to the region?

The wildcard here is what does Alston do to the ACC? Do certain schools then get moved into the SEC? What does that do to the value of the ACC Network? Lot of possibilities.

The SECN has 3 channels now. I could easily see the LHN being added to that grouping. Then what you would have would be the SECEastN and the SECWestN each with one overflow channel. One would be based in Charlotte and the other in Dallas, or wherever it is that the LHN is located. They would be sold as one network but would merely double the coverage while sharing news and Finebaum and SEC Storied as part of the programming. It would draw more subscribers within the footprint because there would be more softball, baseball, and gymnastics to be seen and many fans don't travel to attend these events.

So whether we move to 16 or 18 this would work. The money presently being talked would more than cover the conversion of the LHN.

So whether we add Texas and Oklahoma, or that pair plus one of these pairs (Tech/OSU, Kansas/WVU, or some other) doesn't matter. I do think if we move to 18 we will have to have 9 conference games. And I still think 16 is far more likely than 18.

(02-25-2019 08:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 04:42 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:06 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Those PAC12 folks are getting frustrated with their leadership.

UT and OU being SEC "prospects" is a given in the next expansion round. Saying "viable", would apply, but we are a few years before "confirmable" can be rationally declared, pre-contract.

I have a hunch the ultimate picks will become focused and obvious when time draws near. I doubt there will be an appetizing smorgasbord of schools to pick from. There isn't much now that looks really enticing beyond the B12's top two, maybe three.

UT can be predictable in that they can flirt with multiple, self-generated proposals, plus external offers, then backtrack, by changing their minds or through a denial(s). OU would prefer and Okie State move with them. That limits one, maybe two, options.

The PAC12, several years back, turned down an OU/oSu move. That was short-sighted. Had that happened, the PAC12 would be in better shape today. They may not get that opportunity again.

I look for CBS and the SEC to formalize a new whopper of a deal by 2021. CBS want to lock in and the SEC wants to scoop the 2022 Big 10 renewal. It would also mean that anyone leaving the Big 12 could give their required 2 year notice and the precedent is to play another year and to leave that revenue to cover the last year. If the networks cover the remaining schools revenue until the GOR expires in the 2023-4 season then damage claims for leaving early are essentially mitigated.

If Alston cause Vanderbilt to want to step down in football commitment then we might have 3 full member slots available.

It will make for an interesting next two years.

I think we can still safely say that Texas will want Texas Tech in the deal. If we also make a move for Oklahoma and Kansas then we'll pretty much solidify the best package any network could want.

If CBS and ESPN are working on a renegotiation at the same time then I could even see CBS getting a handful more games in the package. ESPN would be getting plenty of extra content anyway. I don't think they'd need every new game to make it worth their while.

I think that's especially true if they figure out a new plan for the LHN. Right now, the LHN makes a pittance with very little distribution. If Texas is in the fold of the SEC then I think it makes the most sense to figure out a long term plan for the network that uses content for the entire conference.

I don't think you could do an SEC Network 2 and have it be just as successful, but I think you could get creative with it. Something that appeals to all the hardcore fans would be the most profitable, i think.

Or perhaps you do a Spanish language version of the SECN?

Perhaps you show content on there other than exclusively SEC events? Something that appeals to the region?

The wildcard here is what does Alston do to the ACC? Do certain schools then get moved into the SEC? What does that do to the value of the ACC Network? Lot of possibilities.

The SECN has 3 channels now. I could easily see the LHN being added to that grouping. Then what you would have would be the SECEastN and the SECWestN each with one overflow channel. One would be based in Charlotte and the other in Dallas, or wherever it is that the LHN is located. They would be sold as one network but would merely double the coverage while sharing news and Finebaum and SEC Storied as part of the programming. It would draw more subscribers within the footprint because there would be more softball, baseball, and gymnastics to be seen and many fans don't travel to attend these events.

So whether we move to 16 or 18 this would work. The money presently being talked would more than cover the conversion of the LHN.

So whether we add Texas and Oklahoma, or that pair plus one of these pairs (Tech/OSU, Kansas/WVU, or some other) doesn't matter. I do think if we move to 18 we will have to have 9 conference games. And I still think 16 is far more likely than 18.

I really think we need one national channel. That will make it easier to market outside the footprint if nothing else. The more national brands we have, the more we can charge out of market...on both subs and ads. I think that's the key.

That and the overflow feeds we currently have don't get used much as it is. Really, the only time of year they have any usefulness is the Spring when there are so many baseball and softball games. In fact, I've only noticed one of them being used at any given time. I don't even think they're both available in all markets. The rest of our content is available through SECN+ so I don't know that the cost of putting more on cable would actually have much benefit.

More targeted advertising could be helpful, but the audiences for anything outside of football and basketball aren't going to be huge. I think we run the risk of diluting the effectiveness of any ad campaign a customer might want to purchase.

The only conference that has ventured into multiple live feeds is the PAC. Of course, they have numerous issues, but I think pushing content to regional feeds has not been productive. To some degree, they are competing against themselves by trying to anchor multiple channels at the same time.

I know technically we're talking two national channels here rather than regional feeds, but I think it will be harder to sell two networks even if it's for a bundled price.

I don't think ESPN would go that route because it would also reduce the number of football and basketball games available for the primary channels upstream.

I think whatever they use the LHN infrastructure for, it's got to be something you can't get anywhere else. Otherwise, selling it to cable companies will be tougher.