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? - BePcr07 - 10-28-2019 10:31 AM

(10-28-2019 09:24 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  "The SEC has one in KY."

This is an intriguing dynamic of conference realignment/expansion to me. For a long time, FSU for instance was the football power of a basketball conference. They got big because of that dynamic, and in the same way KY was the basketball power in a football conference. For a while FL was the up and coming competitor in basketball, and now, as long as Barnes stays, I hope TN can be that power.

So inviting KS seems great in terms of rivalries, etc., and the conference tournament finals between KS-KY would be fantastic, but does that expansion take away from KY at all? I would think at this point the answer would be no - both brands are well established, and having both in the same conference would be good for all involved.

I'm not as big a fan of Texas Tech, but even their basketball is up and coming if it hasn't arrived yet.

Adding Kansas would be a good thing. I don't think it takes away from Kentucky but adds to the basketball profile of the conference. Losing to Kentucky and Kansas does not hurt a school's chances to make the tournament. In fact, having a close game or even beating them only helps that school. It doesn't really hurt either Kentucky or Kansas. They lose games every year but they still remain on the 1 or 2 line for regionals. I thought Missouri was a weird add but bringing in Kansas would "round it out." Texas Tech is not a bad addition if with Texas or Oklahoma. I don't think they've "arrived" due to 1 or 2 seasons but they're a known quantity with a history in football.


Oklahoma and Texas are the jewels but one or the other with Kansas or Texas Tech works well.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 10-28-2019 05:21 PM

(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-26-2019 11:49 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Though all of these thoughts have merit, I am pondering that IF the SEC took Kansas & Oklahoma (assuming Texas has demurred), wouldn't that eventually force Texas to join the SEC anyway? I'm thinking that the ACC, B1G and PAC (not to mention 2 of the 3 aren't even in the same timezone as Texas) are all "too far away" for both "boosters" and the "minor" sports, and not much "history" with those schools. That leaves the Big12 or SEC. Texas might survive in a decimated Big12 for a while (like to when their current LHN contract expires) but it's doubtful that a decimated B12 will match the payout of the current B12. Couple that with ESPN probably not "renewing" the LHN and the money of the SEC, not to mention the proximity thereof, would be the only real option. Even if KU & OU leave the B12 for the B1G I think Texas will eventually wind up in the SEC...maybe sooner (no pun intended)..or later...because they can't recreate the SWC and have no other real options other than a "Notre Dame" type of arrangement with a re-constituted Big12, and I doubt that would work for long, even for Texas.

Yes. So then the appropriate question is, "Wouldn't it suit Texas better (provided they knew that either or both of Kansas and Oklahoma were leaving) to take the initiative and craft a move more to their liking and one that made it look like they were in control?"

I believe that answer is of course since that is their nature. They won't like moving without a face saving cover. Enter the Texas legislature with more than a resolution requiring Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to play annually.

Then a move to the SEC with Tech guarantees UT 7 games inside the state of Texas annually, and still leaves them 3 games with which to schedule Oklahoma annually for the RRR, and to schedule two more Texas schools of a lesser classification for buy games bringing their instate total to 8 games per year which fits their business model.

The move also essentially cuts Oklahoma out of a major physical presence within Texas except for the RRR game in Dallas, relegates T.C.U. and Baylor to a lesser recruiting status, takes away Texas A&M's SEC brand advantage, and gives the Longhorns their old familiar foes and advantages once again. And does all of that while giving them the excuse that they only made the move to protect Texas Tech and to appease the Texas legislature.

The move the SEC would want would be Texas and Oklahoma. But that move would leave UT with too many equal rivals in their new division. A&M, OU, and L.S.U. would be dangerous gauntlet. They would take Tech along instead of OU to reduce that gauntlet to 2 games for a divisional championship. And that new division would essentially be a more TV worthy yet Texas centric division than the Big 12 with easier travel for their fans and a better fit for their sports.

If this happens Oklahoma and Kansas would be likely for the Big 10 and the SEC and Big 10 will have widened the gap further on the ACC and PAC.

And if Kansas and Oklahoma head to the SEC and then Texas wants in (a situation I don't think Texas would ever permit to happen) then yes they would want in as well. That shift might be covered by say a Vanderbilt move to the ACC (only if Vandy wanted it), or possibly just an expansion to 18 with Tech still being the tag along.

With all that is happening with the court system and players compensation, eventually there will be a break from the NCAA. If in the new sports conference reality structure becomes a right for each conference to decide then three divisions of 6 or a divisionless format would accommodate conference sizes of 18 or even 20 if that was desired and remained profitable for the conference.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - BePcr07 - 10-29-2019 12:42 AM

(10-28-2019 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-26-2019 11:49 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Though all of these thoughts have merit, I am pondering that IF the SEC took Kansas & Oklahoma (assuming Texas has demurred), wouldn't that eventually force Texas to join the SEC anyway? I'm thinking that the ACC, B1G and PAC (not to mention 2 of the 3 aren't even in the same timezone as Texas) are all "too far away" for both "boosters" and the "minor" sports, and not much "history" with those schools. That leaves the Big12 or SEC. Texas might survive in a decimated Big12 for a while (like to when their current LHN contract expires) but it's doubtful that a decimated B12 will match the payout of the current B12. Couple that with ESPN probably not "renewing" the LHN and the money of the SEC, not to mention the proximity thereof, would be the only real option. Even if KU & OU leave the B12 for the B1G I think Texas will eventually wind up in the SEC...maybe sooner (no pun intended)..or later...because they can't recreate the SWC and have no other real options other than a "Notre Dame" type of arrangement with a re-constituted Big12, and I doubt that would work for long, even for Texas.

Yes. So then the appropriate question is, "Wouldn't it suit Texas better (provided they knew that either or both of Kansas and Oklahoma were leaving) to take the initiative and craft a move more to their liking and one that made it look like they were in control?"

I believe that answer is of course since that is their nature. They won't like moving without a face saving cover. Enter the Texas legislature with more than a resolution requiring Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to play annually.

Then a move to the SEC with Tech guarantees UT 7 games inside the state of Texas annually, and still leaves them 3 games with which to schedule Oklahoma annually for the RRR, and to schedule two more Texas schools of a lesser classification for buy games bringing their instate total to 8 games per year which fits their business model.

The move also essentially cuts Oklahoma out of a major physical presence within Texas except for the RRR game in Dallas, relegates T.C.U. and Baylor to a lesser recruiting status, takes away Texas A&M's SEC brand advantage, and gives the Longhorns their old familiar foes and advantages once again. And does all of that while giving them the excuse that they only made the move to protect Texas Tech and to appease the Texas legislature.

The move the SEC would want would be Texas and Oklahoma. But that move would leave UT with too many equal rivals in their new division. A&M, OU, and L.S.U. would be dangerous gauntlet. They would take Tech along instead of OU to reduce that gauntlet to 2 games for a divisional championship. And that new division would essentially be a more TV worthy yet Texas centric division than the Big 12 with easier travel for their fans and a better fit for their sports.

If this happens Oklahoma and Kansas would be likely for the Big 10 and the SEC and Big 10 will have widened the gap further on the ACC and PAC.

And if Kansas and Oklahoma head to the SEC and then Texas wants in (a situation I don't think Texas would ever permit to happen) then yes they would want in as well. That shift might be covered by say a Vanderbilt move to the ACC (only if Vandy wanted it), or possibly just an expansion to 18 with Tech still being the tag along.

With all that is happening with the court system and players compensation, eventually there will be a break from the NCAA. If in the new sports conference reality structure becomes a right for each conference to decide then three divisions of 6 or a divisionless format would accommodate conference sizes of 18 or even 20 if that was desired and remained profitable for the conference.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.

Divisionless at 18:

10 conference games: 3 annual rivals + 7 (rotate 14 every other year)
8 conference games: 5 annual rivals + 3 (rotate 12 every 4 years)

There may other combos but I think the latter works best.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 10-29-2019 12:44 PM

(10-28-2019 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-26-2019 11:49 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Though all of these thoughts have merit, I am pondering that IF the SEC took Kansas & Oklahoma (assuming Texas has demurred), wouldn't that eventually force Texas to join the SEC anyway? I'm thinking that the ACC, B1G and PAC (not to mention 2 of the 3 aren't even in the same timezone as Texas) are all "too far away" for both "boosters" and the "minor" sports, and not much "history" with those schools. That leaves the Big12 or SEC. Texas might survive in a decimated Big12 for a while (like to when their current LHN contract expires) but it's doubtful that a decimated B12 will match the payout of the current B12. Couple that with ESPN probably not "renewing" the LHN and the money of the SEC, not to mention the proximity thereof, would be the only real option. Even if KU & OU leave the B12 for the B1G I think Texas will eventually wind up in the SEC...maybe sooner (no pun intended)..or later...because they can't recreate the SWC and have no other real options other than a "Notre Dame" type of arrangement with a re-constituted Big12, and I doubt that would work for long, even for Texas.

Yes. So then the appropriate question is, "Wouldn't it suit Texas better (provided they knew that either or both of Kansas and Oklahoma were leaving) to take the initiative and craft a move more to their liking and one that made it look like they were in control?"

I believe that answer is of course since that is their nature. They won't like moving without a face saving cover. Enter the Texas legislature with more than a resolution requiring Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to play annually.

Then a move to the SEC with Tech guarantees UT 7 games inside the state of Texas annually, and still leaves them 3 games with which to schedule Oklahoma annually for the RRR, and to schedule two more Texas schools of a lesser classification for buy games bringing their instate total to 8 games per year which fits their business model.

The move also essentially cuts Oklahoma out of a major physical presence within Texas except for the RRR game in Dallas, relegates T.C.U. and Baylor to a lesser recruiting status, takes away Texas A&M's SEC brand advantage, and gives the Longhorns their old familiar foes and advantages once again. And does all of that while giving them the excuse that they only made the move to protect Texas Tech and to appease the Texas legislature.

The move the SEC would want would be Texas and Oklahoma. But that move would leave UT with too many equal rivals in their new division. A&M, OU, and L.S.U. would be dangerous gauntlet. They would take Tech along instead of OU to reduce that gauntlet to 2 games for a divisional championship. And that new division would essentially be a more TV worthy yet Texas centric division than the Big 12 with easier travel for their fans and a better fit for their sports.

If this happens Oklahoma and Kansas would be likely for the Big 10 and the SEC and Big 10 will have widened the gap further on the ACC and PAC.

And if Kansas and Oklahoma head to the SEC and then Texas wants in (a situation I don't think Texas would ever permit to happen) then yes they would want in as well. That shift might be covered by say a Vanderbilt move to the ACC (only if Vandy wanted it), or possibly just an expansion to 18 with Tech still being the tag along.

With all that is happening with the court system and players compensation, eventually there will be a break from the NCAA. If in the new sports conference reality structure becomes a right for each conference to decide then three divisions of 6 or a divisionless format would accommodate conference sizes of 18 or even 20 if that was desired and remained profitable for the conference.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.

I think 20 is an arbitrary number. If we are already at 3 divisions of 6, shifting to 4 of 5 is harder than 3 of 7. 21 might be better.


Scheduling would be harder, but it would establish a wild card and keep fans interested

Division less works at 21 too. You play:
5 every season, rotate 5 for 10 conference games, takes 6 years

4 every season, 4 others at 8 conference games, takes 8 years


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 10-29-2019 02:30 PM

(10-29-2019 12:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-28-2019 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-26-2019 11:49 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Though all of these thoughts have merit, I am pondering that IF the SEC took Kansas & Oklahoma (assuming Texas has demurred), wouldn't that eventually force Texas to join the SEC anyway? I'm thinking that the ACC, B1G and PAC (not to mention 2 of the 3 aren't even in the same timezone as Texas) are all "too far away" for both "boosters" and the "minor" sports, and not much "history" with those schools. That leaves the Big12 or SEC. Texas might survive in a decimated Big12 for a while (like to when their current LHN contract expires) but it's doubtful that a decimated B12 will match the payout of the current B12. Couple that with ESPN probably not "renewing" the LHN and the money of the SEC, not to mention the proximity thereof, would be the only real option. Even if KU & OU leave the B12 for the B1G I think Texas will eventually wind up in the SEC...maybe sooner (no pun intended)..or later...because they can't recreate the SWC and have no other real options other than a "Notre Dame" type of arrangement with a re-constituted Big12, and I doubt that would work for long, even for Texas.

Yes. So then the appropriate question is, "Wouldn't it suit Texas better (provided they knew that either or both of Kansas and Oklahoma were leaving) to take the initiative and craft a move more to their liking and one that made it look like they were in control?"

I believe that answer is of course since that is their nature. They won't like moving without a face saving cover. Enter the Texas legislature with more than a resolution requiring Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to play annually.

Then a move to the SEC with Tech guarantees UT 7 games inside the state of Texas annually, and still leaves them 3 games with which to schedule Oklahoma annually for the RRR, and to schedule two more Texas schools of a lesser classification for buy games bringing their instate total to 8 games per year which fits their business model.

The move also essentially cuts Oklahoma out of a major physical presence within Texas except for the RRR game in Dallas, relegates T.C.U. and Baylor to a lesser recruiting status, takes away Texas A&M's SEC brand advantage, and gives the Longhorns their old familiar foes and advantages once again. And does all of that while giving them the excuse that they only made the move to protect Texas Tech and to appease the Texas legislature.

The move the SEC would want would be Texas and Oklahoma. But that move would leave UT with too many equal rivals in their new division. A&M, OU, and L.S.U. would be dangerous gauntlet. They would take Tech along instead of OU to reduce that gauntlet to 2 games for a divisional championship. And that new division would essentially be a more TV worthy yet Texas centric division than the Big 12 with easier travel for their fans and a better fit for their sports.

If this happens Oklahoma and Kansas would be likely for the Big 10 and the SEC and Big 10 will have widened the gap further on the ACC and PAC.

And if Kansas and Oklahoma head to the SEC and then Texas wants in (a situation I don't think Texas would ever permit to happen) then yes they would want in as well. That shift might be covered by say a Vanderbilt move to the ACC (only if Vandy wanted it), or possibly just an expansion to 18 with Tech still being the tag along.

With all that is happening with the court system and players compensation, eventually there will be a break from the NCAA. If in the new sports conference reality structure becomes a right for each conference to decide then three divisions of 6 or a divisionless format would accommodate conference sizes of 18 or even 20 if that was desired and remained profitable for the conference.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.

I think 20 is an arbitrary number. If we are already at 3 divisions of 6, shifting to 4 of 5 is harder than 3 of 7. 21 might be better.


Scheduling would be harder, but it would establish a wild card and keep fans interested

Division less works at 21 too. You play:
5 every season, rotate 5 for 10 conference games, takes 6 years

4 every season, 4 others at 8 conference games, takes 8 years

Actually 20 is not arbitrary. With 4 half divisions of 5 you would play the 4 in your half division every year. Rotate the 5 from the other divisions each year and play everyone in 3 years. What you would not be able to keep are any permanent rivals except those in your division.

Divisionless you might keep 4 annual rivals and rotate the other 15 (5 per year) play 9 conference games and play everyone every 3 years.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 10-29-2019 03:57 PM

(10-29-2019 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-29-2019 12:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-28-2019 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes. So then the appropriate question is, "Wouldn't it suit Texas better (provided they knew that either or both of Kansas and Oklahoma were leaving) to take the initiative and craft a move more to their liking and one that made it look like they were in control?"

I believe that answer is of course since that is their nature. They won't like moving without a face saving cover. Enter the Texas legislature with more than a resolution requiring Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to play annually.

Then a move to the SEC with Tech guarantees UT 7 games inside the state of Texas annually, and still leaves them 3 games with which to schedule Oklahoma annually for the RRR, and to schedule two more Texas schools of a lesser classification for buy games bringing their instate total to 8 games per year which fits their business model.

The move also essentially cuts Oklahoma out of a major physical presence within Texas except for the RRR game in Dallas, relegates T.C.U. and Baylor to a lesser recruiting status, takes away Texas A&M's SEC brand advantage, and gives the Longhorns their old familiar foes and advantages once again. And does all of that while giving them the excuse that they only made the move to protect Texas Tech and to appease the Texas legislature.

The move the SEC would want would be Texas and Oklahoma. But that move would leave UT with too many equal rivals in their new division. A&M, OU, and L.S.U. would be dangerous gauntlet. They would take Tech along instead of OU to reduce that gauntlet to 2 games for a divisional championship. And that new division would essentially be a more TV worthy yet Texas centric division than the Big 12 with easier travel for their fans and a better fit for their sports.

If this happens Oklahoma and Kansas would be likely for the Big 10 and the SEC and Big 10 will have widened the gap further on the ACC and PAC.

And if Kansas and Oklahoma head to the SEC and then Texas wants in (a situation I don't think Texas would ever permit to happen) then yes they would want in as well. That shift might be covered by say a Vanderbilt move to the ACC (only if Vandy wanted it), or possibly just an expansion to 18 with Tech still being the tag along.

With all that is happening with the court system and players compensation, eventually there will be a break from the NCAA. If in the new sports conference reality structure becomes a right for each conference to decide then three divisions of 6 or a divisionless format would accommodate conference sizes of 18 or even 20 if that was desired and remained profitable for the conference.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.

I think 20 is an arbitrary number. If we are already at 3 divisions of 6, shifting to 4 of 5 is harder than 3 of 7. 21 might be better.


Scheduling would be harder, but it would establish a wild card and keep fans interested

Division less works at 21 too. You play:
5 every season, rotate 5 for 10 conference games, takes 6 years

4 every season, 4 others at 8 conference games, takes 8 years

Actually 20 is not arbitrary. With 4 half divisions of 5 you would play the 4 in your half division every year. Rotate the 5 from the other divisions each year and play everyone in 3 years. What you would not be able to keep are any permanent rivals except those in your division.

Divisionless you might keep 4 annual rivals and rotate the other 15 (5 per year) play 9 conference games and play everyone every 3 years.

Maybe "unnecessary limit" is a better word. The only difference between 20 in a 4 division set up and 21 in a three division set up is you need the 10th conference game to see everyone in three years.

I wrote this mostly because your post mentioned having two spots open for a NC school and FSU. I guess what I am claiming is that 3 spots could also work. One NC school, Clemson and FSU all fit.

I know this is reductio ad absurdum to a point:
If you had 12 conference games you could have 25 teams and play 12 one season and the other 12 the other, but no one is suggesting 25 teams. I've seen some 24 team alignments: 5-1-3 (play 5 from your division, 1 permanent, 3 from another division, get through in 6 years).

I do tend to like the configurations that allow for H-H of every conference team in 4 four years, so that 4 year players are guaranteed to play every team twice. That could work at 15 (4 in your division every year, 5 from the other division and rotate), 16 (3 permanent rivals, rotate the other 6), and larger configurations too.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 10-29-2019 04:07 PM

(10-29-2019 03:57 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-29-2019 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-29-2019 12:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(10-28-2019 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(10-27-2019 11:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas

It would be a really good combo.

I believe that would be the strongest play to date in realignment. It gives us the entire footprint of the Big 12 minus Iowa and West Virginia. It gives us their best three remaining brands. It keeps the rivalries together. And it leaves a future move to 20 with two remaining slots for the ACC reserving slots for a North Carolina school and Florida State. The rest can be left to hang out to dry.

If we don't raid the ACC I think they add WVU for football gravitas and stand pat waiting for N.D. to go all in.

I still like 3 divisions of 6 but going divisionless would be great too. But adding those four cleans up the table and leaves the SEC in an unassailable position with regard to content.

I think 20 is an arbitrary number. If we are already at 3 divisions of 6, shifting to 4 of 5 is harder than 3 of 7. 21 might be better.


Scheduling would be harder, but it would establish a wild card and keep fans interested

Division less works at 21 too. You play:
5 every season, rotate 5 for 10 conference games, takes 6 years

4 every season, 4 others at 8 conference games, takes 8 years

Actually 20 is not arbitrary. With 4 half divisions of 5 you would play the 4 in your half division every year. Rotate the 5 from the other divisions each year and play everyone in 3 years. What you would not be able to keep are any permanent rivals except those in your division.

Divisionless you might keep 4 annual rivals and rotate the other 15 (5 per year) play 9 conference games and play everyone every 3 years.

Maybe "unnecessary limit" is a better word. The only difference between 20 in a 4 division set up and 21 in a three division set up is you need the 10th conference game to see everyone in three years.

I wrote this mostly because your post mentioned having two spots open for a NC school and FSU. I guess what I am claiming is that 3 spots could also work. One NC school, Clemson and FSU all fit.

I know this is reductio ad absurdum to a point:
If you had 12 conference games you could have 25 teams and play 12 one season and the other 12 the other, but no one is suggesting 25 teams. I've seen some 24 team alignments: 5-1-3 (play 5 from your division, 1 permanent, 3 from another division, get through in 6 years).

I do tend to like the configurations that allow for H-H of every conference team in 4 four years, so that 4 year players are guaranteed to play every team twice. That could work at 15 (4 in your division every year, 5 from the other division and rotate), 16 (3 permanent rivals, rotate the other 6), and larger configurations too.

Slive said it best. The only real limit on the size of a conference is profitability.

The biggest obstacles to any of this isn't the desire of the conferences, but the regulations of the NCAA.

And that affects profitability. Get the NCAA out of the way and basketball programs would earn (by themselves) at least 25 million a year in media revenue and many say possibly 35 million. If the NCAA's money hoarding governance of the tournament is out of the way that means that Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas all three could pay their way in (Duke may still be a bit iffy but Carolina may help to cover that).

Right now it is content football program driven process. Let the basketball schools truly keep most of what they actually earn through the tournament and the worm turns and suddenly they become a major factor in realignment.

Last year the tournament made 1 billion. Divide that in half and divide by 64 and figure out the tourney creds. You'll be shocked.

If we truly needed to act in our own self interest with the ACC should it implode why not go to 24 (Clemson, F.S.U., Duke, UNC, Virginia & Va Tech).

If you simply paid every participant in March Madness an equal share that would be 15,625,000 per school. Of course that won't happen. But tack that onto the regular season rights and conference tourney rights and you should be looking at 30-35 million per school easily. And we all know if you pay by credits the top. Tourney creds would be $8,064,500 per school instead of something like 2.5 million now. So each round a school advanced that would be another $8,064,500. Auburn would have made over 40 million just for the tourney last year. Instead we'll get around 12.5 million and we will get that over 6 years.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 10-29-2019 05:25 PM

(10-29-2019 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Slive said it best. The only real limit on the size of a conference is profitability.

The biggest obstacles to any of this isn't the desire of the conferences, but the regulations of the NCAA.

And that affects profitability. Get the NCAA out of the way and basketball programs would earn (by themselves) at least 25 million a year in media revenue and many say possibly 35 million. If the NCAA's money hoarding governance of the tournament is out of the way that means that Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas all three could pay their way in (Duke may still be a bit iffy but Carolina may help to cover that).

Right now it is content football program driven process. Let the basketball schools truly keep most of what they actually earn through the tournament and the worm turns and suddenly they become a major factor in realignment.

Last year the tournament made 1 billion. Divide that in half and divide by 64 and figure out the tourney creds. You'll be shocked.

If we truly needed to act in our own self interest with the ACC should it implode why not go to 24 (Clemson, F.S.U., Duke, UNC, Virginia & Va Tech).

If you simply paid every participant in March Madness an equal share that would be 15,625,000 per school. Of course that won't happen. But tack that onto the regular season rights and conference tourney rights and you should be looking at 30-35 million per school easily. And we all know if you pay by credits the top. Tourney creds would be $8,064,500 per school instead of something like 2.5 million now. So each round a school advanced that would be another $8,064,500. Auburn would have made over 40 million just for the tourney last year. Instead we'll get around 12.5 million and we will get that over 6 years.

The potential value of basketball brings up another question...

With the NCAA out of the way, and we have to wonder if the new compensation rules will effectively accomplish that, then conferences with good basketball immediately become more valuable.

The NCAA Tournament credits are only a part of the equation. The value of the regular season to media companies and ticket buyers is much less than it should be simply because of the structure of the post season.

Theoretically, there should be room for some significant growth.

At that, with the NCAA out of the way, then I suspect the post season tournaments for baseball and softball would take on new value. The price range wouldn't be comparable to football or basketball, but it should be more than a pittance. That and with the MLB talking about doing away with a healthy portion of their minor league system, that means more players for colleges and that ups the quality of play.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 11-01-2019 01:49 PM

(10-29-2019 05:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(10-29-2019 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Slive said it best. The only real limit on the size of a conference is profitability.

The biggest obstacles to any of this isn't the desire of the conferences, but the regulations of the NCAA.

And that affects profitability. Get the NCAA out of the way and basketball programs would earn (by themselves) at least 25 million a year in media revenue and many say possibly 35 million. If the NCAA's money hoarding governance of the tournament is out of the way that means that Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas all three could pay their way in (Duke may still be a bit iffy but Carolina may help to cover that).

Right now it is content football program driven process. Let the basketball schools truly keep most of what they actually earn through the tournament and the worm turns and suddenly they become a major factor in realignment.

Last year the tournament made 1 billion. Divide that in half and divide by 64 and figure out the tourney creds. You'll be shocked.

If we truly needed to act in our own self interest with the ACC should it implode why not go to 24 (Clemson, F.S.U., Duke, UNC, Virginia & Va Tech).

If you simply paid every participant in March Madness an equal share that would be 15,625,000 per school. Of course that won't happen. But tack that onto the regular season rights and conference tourney rights and you should be looking at 30-35 million per school easily. And we all know if you pay by credits the top. Tourney creds would be $8,064,500 per school instead of something like 2.5 million now. So each round a school advanced that would be another $8,064,500. Auburn would have made over 40 million just for the tourney last year. Instead we'll get around 12.5 million and we will get that over 6 years.

The potential value of basketball brings up another question...

With the NCAA out of the way, and we have to wonder if the new compensation rules will effectively accomplish that, then conferences with good basketball immediately become more valuable.

The NCAA Tournament credits are only a part of the equation. The value of the regular season to media companies and ticket buyers is much less than it should be simply because of the structure of the post season.

Theoretically, there should be room for some significant growth.

At that, with the NCAA out of the way, then I suspect the post season tournaments for baseball and softball would take on new value. The price range wouldn't be comparable to football or basketball, but it should be more than a pittance. That and with the MLB talking about doing away with a healthy portion of their minor league system, that means more players for colleges and that ups the quality of play.

First I will express a fear. I am leary of Congress jumping to put a bill in place. I don't want them to exclude the voices of AD's and University presidents by dictating how it will be and that way being an endorsement of the NCAA which is another quasi governmental bureaucracy. I really do want us to have a chance to break from them for the betterment of all of our schools' athletics.

I agree with you about the value of baseball improving as well.

But yes, it should open the eyes of the power conferences to the benefits of including the Duke, Kansas, and North Carolina kinds of additions and currently that would boost the value of a Texas Tech as well.

So I would advise our commissioners, presidents, and ADs to be openly and deliberately involved with talking to their congressmen about what guidelines they feel should be put in place and why. They need to be part of the legislative dialogue before their self interest is hijacked by a couple of guys with an agenda for some form of the status quo plus payouts. It needs to be a university decision, not a Congressional one.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-16-2019 07:55 PM

In a list of predictions for 2020 released by the Sports Business Daily today they predicted that ABC would wrest the SEC Tier 1 contract away from CBS Sports and they anticipated that the contract would be for around 300 million.

That caught my attention and made me do some quick math. Needless to say that CBS would likely be uncooperative with the SEC for the 4 years (2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024) that the SEC would have remaining on the existing contract after 2020 if that were to be the case.

CBS's rumored offer is for 275 million with the contract starting immediately. That would leave the SEC short 56 million over the next 4 years by signing with ABC. But, ABC is under the Disney umbrella and could easily alter their existing contract between ESPN and the SEC so that what amounted to 1 million per SEC school for the next 4 years could easily be made up with a renegotiated SEC contract especially if landing a pair of schools like Oklahoma and Texas might be possible with what will amount by the end of 2025 (the first season of the new contract) to what will be by then in excess of 64 million per year.

It will be interesting to see if Oklahoma or Texas or both were willing to come aboard for what with them might be a payout closer to 70 million per school per year.

I thought that might well be worth some speculation as we wait for the bowls to kick in.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2019/12/16/Media/Sports-media.aspx


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 12-18-2019 04:35 PM

(12-16-2019 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In a list of predictions for 2020 released by the Sports Business Daily today they predicted that ABC would wrest the SEC Tier 1 contract away from CBS Sports and they anticipated that the contract would be for around 300 million.

That caught my attention and made me do some quick math. Needless to say that CBS would likely be uncooperative with the SEC for the 4 years (2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024) that the SEC would have remaining on the existing contract after 2020 if that were to be the case.

CBS's rumored offer is for 275 million with the contract starting immediately. That would leave the SEC short 56 million over the next 4 years by signing with ABC. But, ABC is under the Disney umbrella and could easily alter their existing contract between ESPN and the SEC so that what amounted to 1 million per SEC school for the next 4 years could easily be made up with a renegotiated SEC contract especially if landing a pair of schools like Oklahoma and Texas might be possible with what will amount by the end of 2025 (the first season of the new contract) to what will be by then in excess of 64 million per year.

It will be interesting to see if Oklahoma or Texas or both were willing to come aboard for what with them might be a payout closer to 70 million per school per year.

I thought that might well be worth some speculation as we wait for the bowls to kick in.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2019/12/16/Media/Sports-media.aspx

I'm not sure I quite follow. Are you saying that 275 per year starting beats the ABC offer as it stands?

If so, its an interesting dilemma. According to: https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator#jOOhCptNRF, $275 million in 2019 would be $319 million in 2025. So, the $300 million is actually a lower offer than the $275 (it equals about $259 million in todays terms), but the 275 offer will be worth less later (237 if I am using the calculator right)

Baseball teams are starting to figure this out and offer deferred money or backload contracts. Would a TV network do the same thing?


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-18-2019 05:26 PM

(12-18-2019 04:35 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(12-16-2019 07:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In a list of predictions for 2020 released by the Sports Business Daily today they predicted that ABC would wrest the SEC Tier 1 contract away from CBS Sports and they anticipated that the contract would be for around 300 million.

That caught my attention and made me do some quick math. Needless to say that CBS would likely be uncooperative with the SEC for the 4 years (2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024) that the SEC would have remaining on the existing contract after 2020 if that were to be the case.

CBS's rumored offer is for 275 million with the contract starting immediately. That would leave the SEC short 56 million over the next 4 years by signing with ABC. But, ABC is under the Disney umbrella and could easily alter their existing contract between ESPN and the SEC so that what amounted to 1 million per SEC school for the next 4 years could easily be made up with a renegotiated SEC contract especially if landing a pair of schools like Oklahoma and Texas might be possible with what will amount by the end of 2025 (the first season of the new contract) to what will be by then in excess of 64 million per year.

It will be interesting to see if Oklahoma or Texas or both were willing to come aboard for what with them might be a payout closer to 70 million per school per year.

I thought that might well be worth some speculation as we wait for the bowls to kick in.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2019/12/16/Media/Sports-media.aspx

I'm not sure I quite follow. Are you saying that 275 per year starting beats the ABC offer as it stands?

If so, its an interesting dilemma. According to: https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator#jOOhCptNRF, $275 million in 2019 would be $319 million in 2025. So, the $300 million is actually a lower offer than the $275 (it equals about $259 million in todays terms), but the 275 offer will be worth less later (237 if I am using the calculator right)

Baseball teams are starting to figure this out and offer deferred money or backload contracts. Would a TV network do the same thing?

TV networks have been backloading them for over 15 years now so all of them are. As to CBS the offer would be effective immediately when signed so 2020 would be the earliest likely start date for the revenue, however 2021 is much more likely. We don't want to release our details before the Big 10 if possible. So if we get a 7 year contract then yes the CBS offer would be better in the long run. If the contract is for 10 years then it swings.

I have a sneaking suspicion though that FOX will make an ever bigger offer. We'll see.

BTW: Here is the list of all of the current FBS members regardless of conference who would add enough value to merit inclusion on their own into the SEC:
1. Texas
2. Ohio State
3. Michigan
4. Penn State
5. Notre Dame
6. Oklahoma

There are no ACC teams that add enough value on their own to simply join the SEC.
There are no PAC teams that add enough value on their own to simply join the SEC.
There are only 3 Big 10 teams that add enough value on their own to simply join the SEC.
There are only 2 Big 12 teams that add enough value on their own to simply join the SEC.

Naturally you would assume that Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are quite secure where they are.
It is reasonable to assume that the SEC and Notre Dame do not have a mutual interest in each other.
That just leaves Texas and Oklahoma.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-28-2019 12:09 AM

Well apparently ABC is going to win the bid on the SEC's T1 revenue and CCG. The reported amount will be no less than 350 million with 2 sources thinking it may in the final form approach 400 million. At 350 million. At 350 million it will increase the SEC's per team payout by 19.7 million. For 2018 that total was 43.7 million. 46 million is a good estimate of this year's possible payout. So roughly by 2024 the SEC would be making more than 66 million per school in payouts.

That's a significant raise and the addition of Texas and Oklahoma could put that total just north of 70 million by 2026. The question is will this be the amount it takes to make Oklahoma say yes, and force Texas to consider coming with them?

What if Oklahoma still insists on Oklahoma State and Texas shows interest? Do we dare go to 18 and pick up Kansas as well? At one time the Texa-homa concept included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. At that level of pay would, or even could we, take an Oklahoma State?

If creating a conference with an enhanced academic profile is a strong consideration would it not be best to take Kansas, Texas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma and add 3 AAU schools to the SEC bringing our total to 7 and eclipsing the ACC's total of AAU members in the process?

Is expanding by 4 worth losing that extra 5 million payout for say a more modest increase of 2 million with the additions if they met other needs?

Obviously we should make a play for just 2 schools. But if both Texas and Oklahoma had interest but only if OSU, or even OSU and Tech were involved should we do it?

I look at it this way. With Texas and Oklahoma our economic impact valuation goes from 7.5 billion to 9..5 billion. The best the Big 10 could hope for would be to move from 5.5 billion to 6.8 billion if they added Notre Dame and either North Carolina or Virginia. So the move would lock the SEC in the top slot without any chance of being eclipsed.

It would take us close enough to 70 million that with escalators we should stay a few million ahead of the Big 10 from there on out.

Oklahoma and Texas have solid followings and SEC sized crowds in attendance. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do not.

Personally I think the move, even with tag-alongs would be prudent because it essentially ends any chance that another conference can surpass our economic strength and since we have the hammer on recruiting territory it pretty well cinches our positions.

That said if we can't just add two, I would prefer to see us go for the academic enhancement.

If Texas insists on Texas Tech do you think we would be better off with simply Oklahoma and Kansas provided OU doesn't have to stay tethered to OSU?

I keep coming back to what Mike Slive said when asked how big can the SEC be? And he said our size was only limited by profit.

What are your thoughts? Jahawkmvp seems to think that 4 might be a winning offer. Some of you have favored going larger. So keeping this discussion just to the Big 12 possibilities what do you think and why?

And whether your preference is 16 or 18 (no 20's at this time as it would be impractical at the monetary levels) and assuming that we do not yet have division less formats to utilize, what would be your preferred configuration? 2x9, or 3x 6 if we could get a waiver?


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 12-28-2019 12:07 PM

(12-28-2019 12:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well apparently ABC is going to win the bid on the SEC's T1 revenue and CCG. The reported amount will be no less than 350 million with 2 sources thinking it may in the final form approach 400 million. At 350 million. At 350 million it will increase the SEC's per team payout by 19.7 million. For 2018 that total was 43.7 million. 46 million is a good estimate of this year's possible payout. So roughly by 2024 the SEC would be making more than 66 million per school in payouts.

That's a significant raise and the addition of Texas and Oklahoma could put that total just north of 70 million by 2026. The question is will this be the amount it takes to make Oklahoma say yes, and force Texas to consider coming with them?

What if Oklahoma still insists on Oklahoma State and Texas shows interest? Do we dare go to 18 and pick up Kansas as well? At one time the Texa-homa concept included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. At that level of pay would, or even could we, take an Oklahoma State?

If creating a conference with an enhanced academic profile is a strong consideration would it not be best to take Kansas, Texas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma and add 3 AAU schools to the SEC bringing our total to 7 and eclipsing the ACC's total of AAU members in the process?

Is expanding by 4 worth losing that extra 5 million payout for say a more modest increase of 2 million with the additions if they met other needs?

Obviously we should make a play for just 2 schools. But if both Texas and Oklahoma had interest but only if OSU, or even OSU and Tech were involved should we do it?

I look at it this way. With Texas and Oklahoma our economic impact valuation goes from 7.5 billion to 9..5 billion. The best the Big 10 could hope for would be to move from 5.5 billion to 6.8 billion if they added Notre Dame and either North Carolina or Virginia. So the move would lock the SEC in the top slot without any chance of being eclipsed.

It would take us close enough to 70 million that with escalators we should stay a few million ahead of the Big 10 from there on out.

Oklahoma and Texas have solid followings and SEC sized crowds in attendance. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do not.

Personally I think the move, even with tag-alongs would be prudent because it essentially ends any chance that another conference can surpass our economic strength and since we have the hammer on recruiting territory it pretty well cinches our positions.

That said if we can't just add two, I would prefer to see us go for the academic enhancement.

If Texas insists on Texas Tech do you think we would be better off with simply Oklahoma and Kansas provided OU doesn't have to stay tethered to OSU?

I keep coming back to what Mike Slive said when asked how big can the SEC be? And he said our size was only limited by profit.

What are your thoughts? Jahawkmvp seems to think that 4 might be a winning offer. Some of you have favored going larger. So keeping this discussion just to the Big 12 possibilities what do you think and why?

And whether your preference is 16 or 18 (no 20's at this time as it would be impractical at the monetary levels) and assuming that we do not yet have division less formats to utilize, what would be your preferred configuration? 2x9, or 3x 6 if we could get a waiver?

With the data from this site on football and basketball evaluation, Kansas St would bring more to the table than OK St, which surprised me. Texas Tech's numbers were alot lower than both, however, the data was from 2016 before their final four run. I doubt however that even several years of final four runs would be worth enough to bring it up to match Kansas St/OK St. I had also been wondering about TCU as an alternative to Tech, but they do not bring enough either. WVU is clearly out as is Baylor (though Baylor vs. TN women's basketball could be fun).

If we had to take four from the Big 12 Texas, OK, Kansas and KS St. would be the top four based on sheer valuation. But I don't hear many proposals of KSU to the SEC.

I do think ISU would be a cultural fit even if a geographical oddity. Texas, OK, Kansas and Iowa St would bring 3 new states (total population: approximately $10 million), and whatever Texas brings. It would bring 3 new AAU programs (as mentioned above) and would also create some solid intra and extraconference matchups.

Texas, OK, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa St., Arkansas
Texas A&M, LSU, Miss. St., Ole Miss, Alabama, Auburn
Florida, Georgia, TN, KY, Vandy, South Carolina

I'll suggest a 5-3-1 model based on the NFL (which the SEC will hate, but hey its my formula)

5 division games
3 against half of another division on a rotating basis
1 either protected rivalry (UT-Bama, Auburn-Georgia, Texas-A&M if they can play nice OR play team ranked in the same spot as you were in the previous year from 3rd division; everyone gets bumped down one spot if the protected rivals are division winners).

I'm living in Missouri right now, so I really would love to see Kansas in the SEC - their basketball alone is worth more than some football programs (also, if we are moving toward more brand based realignment, I wonder if a school like Duke would have more value, but thats ACC, and a much later shift).

I also hear only good things about the ISU fanbase - travel's well, supports the program, etc.

That being said, I doubt these four get taken. I actually think that the Big 10 takes Texas and Iowa St. - ISU is doubles a market but is AAU and draws firms up the border between Big 10 and SEC, and would be middle of the pack in the Big 10 in terms of valuation, right between Minnesota and Indiana. That leaves OK and Kansas for the SEC.

OK, Kansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St.
Alabama, Auburn, TN, Georgia, Vandy, Florida, USC, KY

7-2 format, play your division, with no need for protected rivalries, and play 2 others. could also do 4-4 and do 3-4-2 (your division, one other division, and 2 from the other division that finished in same place in standings, as above with protected rivalries).

Yes, this splits OK from OK St AND from Texas. That would mean 11 P5 games if the Big 12 backfilled.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 12-28-2019 03:14 PM

I've always liked the idea of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State.

It's a little weird, but it fits a certain criteria. The academic angle has been covered.

In addition to that, I would add that it grows the potential audience for the league. If you're going to take smaller scale programs then it's better to add them from states/markets that you don't already penetrate. IA and KS are not currently in SEC territory by any means so grabbing solid products in both states would grow the organic audience.

Sometimes, people compare those programs to Missouri. Geographically speaking, they are certainly in the same ballpark, but there are some differences. MU is a program in a fairly populous state, but one that takes certain pro sports very seriously. That's a little different than what you tend to see in SEC territory. The St. Louis Cardinals and Kansas City Chiefs are big time in those markets. That reduces the potential audience among the casual fan in that state.

This isn't a knock on Missouri, but I'm just trying to be realistic. In states like KS and IA, you don't have the pro sport problem. Their flagship schools are much more readily followed...much more similar to what you see in the Southeast. While it's true that Kansas City is a market with large suburbs on the KS side of the state line, I've never gotten the impression that MU had a larger and more dedicated fan base than KU. Seems the opposite to me.

In addition, I think basketball will become more valuable as time passes if the major conferences play their cards right. One day we may look back and regret not diversifying our interests a little more. KU is a basketball blue blood and ISU is pretty good in their own right.

I wouldn't classify Texas Tech or Oklahoma State as weak programs, but they don't really fit the SEC average and considering they duplicate markets that would be well covered...I don't see the point unless it's purely a matter that UT and OU demand their inclusion.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 12-28-2019 09:44 PM

(12-28-2019 12:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well apparently ABC is going to win the bid on the SEC's T1 revenue and CCG. The reported amount will be no less than 350 million with 2 sources thinking it may in the final form approach 400 million. At 350 million. At 350 million it will increase the SEC's per team payout by 19.7 million. For 2018 that total was 43.7 million. 46 million is a good estimate of this year's possible payout. So roughly by 2024 the SEC would be making more than 66 million per school in payouts.

That's a significant raise and the addition of Texas and Oklahoma could put that total just north of 70 million by 2026. The question is will this be the amount it takes to make Oklahoma say yes, and force Texas to consider coming with them?

What if Oklahoma still insists on Oklahoma State and Texas shows interest? Do we dare go to 18 and pick up Kansas as well? At one time the Texa-homa concept included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. At that level of pay would, or even could we, take an Oklahoma State?

If creating a conference with an enhanced academic profile is a strong consideration would it not be best to take Kansas, Texas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma and add 3 AAU schools to the SEC bringing our total to 7 and eclipsing the ACC's total of AAU members in the process?

Is expanding by 4 worth losing that extra 5 million payout for say a more modest increase of 2 million with the additions if they met other needs?

Obviously we should make a play for just 2 schools. But if both Texas and Oklahoma had interest but only if OSU, or even OSU and Tech were involved should we do it?

I look at it this way. With Texas and Oklahoma our economic impact valuation goes from 7.5 billion to 9..5 billion. The best the Big 10 could hope for would be to move from 5.5 billion to 6.8 billion if they added Notre Dame and either North Carolina or Virginia. So the move would lock the SEC in the top slot without any chance of being eclipsed.

It would take us close enough to 70 million that with escalators we should stay a few million ahead of the Big 10 from there on out.

Oklahoma and Texas have solid followings and SEC sized crowds in attendance. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do not.

Personally I think the move, even with tag-alongs would be prudent because it essentially ends any chance that another conference can surpass our economic strength and since we have the hammer on recruiting territory it pretty well cinches our positions.

That said if we can't just add two, I would prefer to see us go for the academic enhancement.

If Texas insists on Texas Tech do you think we would be better off with simply Oklahoma and Kansas provided OU doesn't have to stay tethered to OSU?

I keep coming back to what Mike Slive said when asked how big can the SEC be? And he said our size was only limited by profit.

What are your thoughts? Jahawkmvp seems to think that 4 might be a winning offer. Some of you have favored going larger. So keeping this discussion just to the Big 12 possibilities what do you think and why?

And whether your preference is 16 or 18 (no 20's at this time as it would be impractical at the monetary levels) and assuming that we do not yet have division less formats to utilize, what would be your preferred configuration? 2x9, or 3x 6 if we could get a waiver?

I replied to this above and kept within your limits, but I've been brainstorming and wondering about 15 too (3 x 5 or yes, divisionless which breaks your rules). My above post stands at 16/18.

But in some ways I think 15 is more natural: here is why: Texas may hesitate to go to the SEC or Big 10. Independence, ACC, or even a reconfigured Big 12 perhaps with yes the Arizona schools or perhaps even USC, etc. Could perhaps make enough to lessen the gap some. But it is a large gap to bridge.

That leaves two brands from the Big 12, OK and Kansas. OK to the Big 10 reunites them with Nebraska, but they are not AAU. Kansas to the SEC reunites them with Missouri, and adds basketball power. The reverse makes more sense but neither conference loses.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-28-2019 10:10 PM

(12-28-2019 09:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 12:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well apparently ABC is going to win the bid on the SEC's T1 revenue and CCG. The reported amount will be no less than 350 million with 2 sources thinking it may in the final form approach 400 million. At 350 million. At 350 million it will increase the SEC's per team payout by 19.7 million. For 2018 that total was 43.7 million. 46 million is a good estimate of this year's possible payout. So roughly by 2024 the SEC would be making more than 66 million per school in payouts.

That's a significant raise and the addition of Texas and Oklahoma could put that total just north of 70 million by 2026. The question is will this be the amount it takes to make Oklahoma say yes, and force Texas to consider coming with them?

What if Oklahoma still insists on Oklahoma State and Texas shows interest? Do we dare go to 18 and pick up Kansas as well? At one time the Texa-homa concept included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. At that level of pay would, or even could we, take an Oklahoma State?

If creating a conference with an enhanced academic profile is a strong consideration would it not be best to take Kansas, Texas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma and add 3 AAU schools to the SEC bringing our total to 7 and eclipsing the ACC's total of AAU members in the process?

Is expanding by 4 worth losing that extra 5 million payout for say a more modest increase of 2 million with the additions if they met other needs?

Obviously we should make a play for just 2 schools. But if both Texas and Oklahoma had interest but only if OSU, or even OSU and Tech were involved should we do it?

I look at it this way. With Texas and Oklahoma our economic impact valuation goes from 7.5 billion to 9..5 billion. The best the Big 10 could hope for would be to move from 5.5 billion to 6.8 billion if they added Notre Dame and either North Carolina or Virginia. So the move would lock the SEC in the top slot without any chance of being eclipsed.

It would take us close enough to 70 million that with escalators we should stay a few million ahead of the Big 10 from there on out.

Oklahoma and Texas have solid followings and SEC sized crowds in attendance. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do not.

Personally I think the move, even with tag-alongs would be prudent because it essentially ends any chance that another conference can surpass our economic strength and since we have the hammer on recruiting territory it pretty well cinches our positions.

That said if we can't just add two, I would prefer to see us go for the academic enhancement.

If Texas insists on Texas Tech do you think we would be better off with simply Oklahoma and Kansas provided OU doesn't have to stay tethered to OSU?

I keep coming back to what Mike Slive said when asked how big can the SEC be? And he said our size was only limited by profit.

What are your thoughts? Jahawkmvp seems to think that 4 might be a winning offer. Some of you have favored going larger. So keeping this discussion just to the Big 12 possibilities what do you think and why?

And whether your preference is 16 or 18 (no 20's at this time as it would be impractical at the monetary levels) and assuming that we do not yet have division less formats to utilize, what would be your preferred configuration? 2x9, or 3x 6 if we could get a waiver?

I replied to this above and kept within your limits, but I've been brainstorming and wondering about 15 too (3 x 5 or yes, divisionless which breaks your rules). My above post stands at 16/18.

But in some ways I think 15 is more natural: here is why: Texas may hesitate to go to the SEC or Big 10. Independence, ACC, or even a reconfigured Big 12 perhaps with yes the Arizona schools or perhaps even USC, etc. Could perhaps make enough to lessen the gap some. But it is a large gap to bridge.

That leaves two brands from the Big 12, OK and Kansas. OK to the Big 10 reunites them with Nebraska, but they are not AAU. Kansas to the SEC reunites them with Missouri, and adds basketball power. The reverse makes more sense but neither conference loses.

If I thought we could get to a division-less format I would certainly entertain adding 1 school. We'll just have to wait and see on that.

But as to your reasoning in the selections here's what I think.

It is to the SEC's benefit if Texas wants to go independent and schmooze a deal with the ACC. And it doesn't really hurt the SEC if Oklahoma heads north because an Oklahoma cut off from regular games in Texas (and I'm assuming all they would have left is the RRR) wouldn't really be a threat to the SEC other than the economic boost they give the Big 10.

In that case Kansas would probably give the SEC exactly what it wants in hoops and would give the current Western Division a Vanderbilt / Kentucky kind of conference game that until just recently the SEC West lacked. But if it is just to 15 then placing Kansas and Missouri in a division with L.S.U., Arkansas, and Texas A&M makes for a fairly week division most years. That's good for L.S.U. and A&M but not so good for say Georgia who would be playing Tennessee (which is getting better), Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky.

I don't think it would be out of line from the other forced division of Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St., and Vandy.

Your thoughts?


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Soobahk40050 - 12-29-2019 08:32 AM

(12-28-2019 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 09:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 12:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well apparently ABC is going to win the bid on the SEC's T1 revenue and CCG. The reported amount will be no less than 350 million with 2 sources thinking it may in the final form approach 400 million. At 350 million. At 350 million it will increase the SEC's per team payout by 19.7 million. For 2018 that total was 43.7 million. 46 million is a good estimate of this year's possible payout. So roughly by 2024 the SEC would be making more than 66 million per school in payouts.

That's a significant raise and the addition of Texas and Oklahoma could put that total just north of 70 million by 2026. The question is will this be the amount it takes to make Oklahoma say yes, and force Texas to consider coming with them?

What if Oklahoma still insists on Oklahoma State and Texas shows interest? Do we dare go to 18 and pick up Kansas as well? At one time the Texa-homa concept included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. At that level of pay would, or even could we, take an Oklahoma State?

If creating a conference with an enhanced academic profile is a strong consideration would it not be best to take Kansas, Texas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma and add 3 AAU schools to the SEC bringing our total to 7 and eclipsing the ACC's total of AAU members in the process?

Is expanding by 4 worth losing that extra 5 million payout for say a more modest increase of 2 million with the additions if they met other needs?

Obviously we should make a play for just 2 schools. But if both Texas and Oklahoma had interest but only if OSU, or even OSU and Tech were involved should we do it?

I look at it this way. With Texas and Oklahoma our economic impact valuation goes from 7.5 billion to 9..5 billion. The best the Big 10 could hope for would be to move from 5.5 billion to 6.8 billion if they added Notre Dame and either North Carolina or Virginia. So the move would lock the SEC in the top slot without any chance of being eclipsed.

It would take us close enough to 70 million that with escalators we should stay a few million ahead of the Big 10 from there on out.

Oklahoma and Texas have solid followings and SEC sized crowds in attendance. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do not.

Personally I think the move, even with tag-alongs would be prudent because it essentially ends any chance that another conference can surpass our economic strength and since we have the hammer on recruiting territory it pretty well cinches our positions.

That said if we can't just add two, I would prefer to see us go for the academic enhancement.

If Texas insists on Texas Tech do you think we would be better off with simply Oklahoma and Kansas provided OU doesn't have to stay tethered to OSU?

I keep coming back to what Mike Slive said when asked how big can the SEC be? And he said our size was only limited by profit.

What are your thoughts? Jahawkmvp seems to think that 4 might be a winning offer. Some of you have favored going larger. So keeping this discussion just to the Big 12 possibilities what do you think and why?

And whether your preference is 16 or 18 (no 20's at this time as it would be impractical at the monetary levels) and assuming that we do not yet have division less formats to utilize, what would be your preferred configuration? 2x9, or 3x 6 if we could get a waiver?

I replied to this above and kept within your limits, but I've been brainstorming and wondering about 15 too (3 x 5 or yes, divisionless which breaks your rules). My above post stands at 16/18.

But in some ways I think 15 is more natural: here is why: Texas may hesitate to go to the SEC or Big 10. Independence, ACC, or even a reconfigured Big 12 perhaps with yes the Arizona schools or perhaps even USC, etc. Could perhaps make enough to lessen the gap some. But it is a large gap to bridge.

That leaves two brands from the Big 12, OK and Kansas. OK to the Big 10 reunites them with Nebraska, but they are not AAU. Kansas to the SEC reunites them with Missouri, and adds basketball power. The reverse makes more sense but neither conference loses.

If I thought we could get to a division-less format I would certainly entertain adding 1 school. We'll just have to wait and see on that.

But as to your reasoning in the selections here's what I think.

It is to the SEC's benefit if Texas wants to go independent and schmooze a deal with the ACC. And it doesn't really hurt the SEC if Oklahoma heads north because an Oklahoma cut off from regular games in Texas (and I'm assuming all they would have left is the RRR) wouldn't really be a threat to the SEC other than the economic boost they give the Big 10.

In that case Kansas would probably give the SEC exactly what it wants in hoops and would give the current Western Division a Vanderbilt / Kentucky kind of conference game that until just recently the SEC West lacked. But if it is just to 15 then placing Kansas and Missouri in a division with L.S.U., Arkansas, and Texas A&M makes for a fairly week division most years. That's good for L.S.U. and A&M but not so good for say Georgia who would be playing Tennessee (which is getting better), Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky.

I don't think it would be out of line from the other forced division of Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St., and Vandy.

Your thoughts?

Unless you do uneven divisions of 7 and 8, this is going to be an issue. You could do a "north division" and set it up as

TN, Vandy, KY, Missouri, Kansas
Georgia, FL, SC, Alabama, Auburn
A&M, LSU, Ark, ole Miss, Miss St.

But then that north division is weak while the south division (Georgia, etc.) Is loaded.

An advantage to 3x5 is it is simpler to rearrange divisions later at 3x6 (say NC St, Clemson, Florida St.)


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-29-2019 12:36 PM

(12-29-2019 08:32 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 09:44 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(12-28-2019 12:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Well apparently ABC is going to win the bid on the SEC's T1 revenue and CCG. The reported amount will be no less than 350 million with 2 sources thinking it may in the final form approach 400 million. At 350 million. At 350 million it will increase the SEC's per team payout by 19.7 million. For 2018 that total was 43.7 million. 46 million is a good estimate of this year's possible payout. So roughly by 2024 the SEC would be making more than 66 million per school in payouts.

That's a significant raise and the addition of Texas and Oklahoma could put that total just north of 70 million by 2026. The question is will this be the amount it takes to make Oklahoma say yes, and force Texas to consider coming with them?

What if Oklahoma still insists on Oklahoma State and Texas shows interest? Do we dare go to 18 and pick up Kansas as well? At one time the Texa-homa concept included Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. At that level of pay would, or even could we, take an Oklahoma State?

If creating a conference with an enhanced academic profile is a strong consideration would it not be best to take Kansas, Texas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma and add 3 AAU schools to the SEC bringing our total to 7 and eclipsing the ACC's total of AAU members in the process?

Is expanding by 4 worth losing that extra 5 million payout for say a more modest increase of 2 million with the additions if they met other needs?

Obviously we should make a play for just 2 schools. But if both Texas and Oklahoma had interest but only if OSU, or even OSU and Tech were involved should we do it?

I look at it this way. With Texas and Oklahoma our economic impact valuation goes from 7.5 billion to 9..5 billion. The best the Big 10 could hope for would be to move from 5.5 billion to 6.8 billion if they added Notre Dame and either North Carolina or Virginia. So the move would lock the SEC in the top slot without any chance of being eclipsed.

It would take us close enough to 70 million that with escalators we should stay a few million ahead of the Big 10 from there on out.

Oklahoma and Texas have solid followings and SEC sized crowds in attendance. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech do not.

Personally I think the move, even with tag-alongs would be prudent because it essentially ends any chance that another conference can surpass our economic strength and since we have the hammer on recruiting territory it pretty well cinches our positions.

That said if we can't just add two, I would prefer to see us go for the academic enhancement.

If Texas insists on Texas Tech do you think we would be better off with simply Oklahoma and Kansas provided OU doesn't have to stay tethered to OSU?

I keep coming back to what Mike Slive said when asked how big can the SEC be? And he said our size was only limited by profit.

What are your thoughts? Jahawkmvp seems to think that 4 might be a winning offer. Some of you have favored going larger. So keeping this discussion just to the Big 12 possibilities what do you think and why?

And whether your preference is 16 or 18 (no 20's at this time as it would be impractical at the monetary levels) and assuming that we do not yet have division less formats to utilize, what would be your preferred configuration? 2x9, or 3x 6 if we could get a waiver?

I replied to this above and kept within your limits, but I've been brainstorming and wondering about 15 too (3 x 5 or yes, divisionless which breaks your rules). My above post stands at 16/18.

But in some ways I think 15 is more natural: here is why: Texas may hesitate to go to the SEC or Big 10. Independence, ACC, or even a reconfigured Big 12 perhaps with yes the Arizona schools or perhaps even USC, etc. Could perhaps make enough to lessen the gap some. But it is a large gap to bridge.

That leaves two brands from the Big 12, OK and Kansas. OK to the Big 10 reunites them with Nebraska, but they are not AAU. Kansas to the SEC reunites them with Missouri, and adds basketball power. The reverse makes more sense but neither conference loses.

If I thought we could get to a division-less format I would certainly entertain adding 1 school. We'll just have to wait and see on that.

But as to your reasoning in the selections here's what I think.

It is to the SEC's benefit if Texas wants to go independent and schmooze a deal with the ACC. And it doesn't really hurt the SEC if Oklahoma heads north because an Oklahoma cut off from regular games in Texas (and I'm assuming all they would have left is the RRR) wouldn't really be a threat to the SEC other than the economic boost they give the Big 10.

In that case Kansas would probably give the SEC exactly what it wants in hoops and would give the current Western Division a Vanderbilt / Kentucky kind of conference game that until just recently the SEC West lacked. But if it is just to 15 then placing Kansas and Missouri in a division with L.S.U., Arkansas, and Texas A&M makes for a fairly week division most years. That's good for L.S.U. and A&M but not so good for say Georgia who would be playing Tennessee (which is getting better), Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky.

I don't think it would be out of line from the other forced division of Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St., and Vandy.

Your thoughts?

Unless you do uneven divisions of 7 and 8, this is going to be an issue. You could do a "north division" and set it up as

TN, Vandy, KY, Missouri, Kansas
Georgia, FL, SC, Alabama, Auburn
A&M, LSU, Ark, ole Miss, Miss St.

But then that north division is weak while the south division (Georgia, etc.) Is loaded.

An advantage to 3x5 is it is simpler to rearrange divisions later at 3x6 (say NC St, Clemson, Florida St.)

If we add Oklahoma or Texas or both mathematically it ends at 16 because nobody left adds enough value and because scheduling is always easier with even numbers.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - OdinFrigg - 12-29-2019 01:18 PM

I understand the reservations about Texas, i.e. attitude, excessively self-serving, lust for organizational control, and it's vindictive behavior with Texas A&M, etc.
That noted, I view them as the #1 preferred prospect for SEC expansion if/when such happens. They check all the prime boxes and their value is fundamentally unmatched.
However, I am not in favor of pandering to them in extraordinary ways. Bringing along a bunch of coattail schools could divisively impact the SEC, not, perhaps, so distinctive from the results generated by the formation of the Big 12.
If added, let the LHN run its course until it expires. Financial accomodations can be negotiated.

Oklahoma is the other high value target. Here too, no coattail unless clearly desired by the SEC.

Even with ESPN media rights engaged, it is very doubtful any NC or VA ACC school will be in play or want to leave the ACC. I'd add Clemson to that. Their GoR would take a lot of votes to make any exceptions. To me personally, this is unrealistic and frustrating because I'd like to see NCSU or UNC (even Duke) in the SEC.

Again, I'd go for Texas first, and Oklahoma. . If one or the other isn't available, I suppose Kansas would offer some asset if reaching 16 is a 'must' immediately.
I'd take Texas-Oklahoma State if OU-Kansas were heading to the BIG.
Actually, the BIG12 and PAC12 could do something together and innovative, but either showing flexibility and profound willingness for major change doesn't appear to be a formidable option right now.
Heck, maybe nobody leaves the BIG12 in three or four years.