(12-20-2017 10:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:21 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  And somebody may have to pay-off disenfranchised Baylor. Just saying.....

ESPN owns the AAC. If they move Baylor there all they have to do legally is to pay Baylor their B12 rate through 2025. The Bears were going to be on their own come that time anyway. And in the AAC they join Houston and S.M.U..

They could so the same thing with multiple members then couldn't they?

If ESPN and Fox cooperate at a higher level then all they really have to do is move the truly valuable properties and maybe a few little brothers. Pay the rest what they're owed through the end of the contract and you've pretty much got your solution.

I would think then the only point of debate would be who gets included as part of the settlement.

Along the line of thought that the RSNs will become a key component of distributing college content and thus making regional match-ups more valuable, how about this setup?

The SEC adds 6...

Perhaps Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Divide the league up into 4 divisions of course.

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

Obviously, you've got the SEC Network to distribute a lot of content and the league shares that revenue. Here's the kicker though, take these 4 divisions and designate 4 of your existing RSNs to their coverage. You could even create a system where more of the RSNs overlap in certain markets. We get 2 different RSNs here for example...

No need to create new networks, just use the new acquisitions a little more efficiently that Fox ever could have.

Thoughts?

The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

(12-23-2017 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

The flip side X is precisely why ESPN is going after the rights, streaming. I don't know how stream ready the PAC is, but the ACC and SEC are very ready. There are plenty of streaming services ready to take that product now. The PAC has labored for two reasons, the streamers weren't ready for them, and their viewing numbers are so low the sponsors weren't there. That's not the case for SEC football or ACC basketball, although your football numbers still need to come up you do have some very salable brands. But when the people in California don't turn out or tune in for anything but Cal / Stanford and USC/UCLA their problems are going to be present no matter what model they utilize.

(12-23-2017 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

The flip side X is precisely why ESPN is going after the rights, streaming. I don't know how stream ready the PAC is, but the ACC and SEC are very ready. There are plenty of streaming services ready to take that product now. The PAC has labored for two reasons, the streamers weren't ready for them, and their viewing numbers are so low the sponsors weren't there. That's not the case for SEC football or ACC basketball, although your football numbers still need to come up you do have some very salable brands. But when the people in California don't turn out or tune in for anything but Cal / Stanford and USC/UCLA their problems are going to be present no matter what model they utilize.

Producing in-house wouldn't be too hard although we'd probably have to build our own production studio in order to integrate all the sites. And signing a deal with Amazon would literally mean something akin to worldwide distribution.

For right now, I think ESPN is the best partner we could have as we can tap into their cable infrastructure and take advantage of their cross marketing abilities. If they're willing to pay us to keep from producing our own content then I suppose that is ideal.

If they don't though then we're going to be able to raid their other properties ultimately and that will be bad for their business.

(12-23-2017 09:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

The flip side X is precisely why ESPN is going after the rights, streaming. I don't know how stream ready the PAC is, but the ACC and SEC are very ready. There are plenty of streaming services ready to take that product now. The PAC has labored for two reasons, the streamers weren't ready for them, and their viewing numbers are so low the sponsors weren't there. That's not the case for SEC football or ACC basketball, although your football numbers still need to come up you do have some very salable brands. But when the people in California don't turn out or tune in for anything but Cal / Stanford and USC/UCLA their problems are going to be present no matter what model they utilize.

Producing in-house wouldn't be too hard although we'd probably have to build our own production studio in order to integrate all the sites. And signing a deal with Amazon would literally mean something akin to worldwide distribution.

For right now, I think ESPN is the best partner we could have as we can tap into their cable infrastructure and take advantage of their cross marketing abilities. If they're willing to pay us to keep from producing our own content then I suppose that is ideal.

If they don't though then we're going to be able to raid their other properties ultimately and that will be bad for their business.

Exactly. ESPN has helped us to gain markets and has established a solid revenue base. But, the downside of the relationship is that we could not grow more naturally because our best additions were needed to build up revenue in the ACC.

(12-23-2017 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

The flip side X is precisely why ESPN is going after the rights, streaming. I don't know how stream ready the PAC is, but the ACC and SEC are very ready. There are plenty of streaming services ready to take that product now. The PAC has labored for two reasons, the streamers weren't ready for them, and their viewing numbers are so low the sponsors weren't there. That's not the case for SEC football or ACC basketball, although your football numbers still need to come up you do have some very salable brands. But when the people in California don't turn out or tune in for anything but Cal / Stanford and USC/UCLA their problems are going to be present no matter what model they utilize.

Streaming? To what end?
I can now get all of the ESPN networks, SECN, the FOX sports networks all for one low price through my cable operator.
I do not get the B1G network, or the PAC series of networks because I choose not to pay for them.
I am not going to cancel or stop watching, or better yet my wife isn't going to stop watching programs that she enjoys or give up "flippin' channels" to save a few dollars a month.
Streaming will reduce income to the conferences (or individual schools). Unless the SECN is bundled with the ACCN (streaming), I am not going to subscribe to it. The $.25 a month the SEC gets now from me now using the cable model will just go away, and if you multiply that by several millions of households it could really put a dent in conference income.
The risk of streaming is that you will lose the casual fan. The person that would only watch one or two games a year because it was on and he/she didn't have anything else to do and it was free.
How do you grow a market or fan base with streaming? For the consumer it like buying a pig in a poke. You have to buy it to try it?
Fortunately all of the pitfalls should be worked out before the ACC contract expires with ESPN.

(12-24-2017 07:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

The flip side X is precisely why ESPN is going after the rights, streaming. I don't know how stream ready the PAC is, but the ACC and SEC are very ready. There are plenty of streaming services ready to take that product now. The PAC has labored for two reasons, the streamers weren't ready for them, and their viewing numbers are so low the sponsors weren't there. That's not the case for SEC football or ACC basketball, although your football numbers still need to come up you do have some very salable brands. But when the people in California don't turn out or tune in for anything but Cal / Stanford and USC/UCLA their problems are going to be present no matter what model they utilize.

Streaming? To what end?
I can now get all of the ESPN networks, SECN, the FOX sports networks all for one low price through my cable operator.
I do not get the B1G network, or the PAC series of networks because I choose not to pay for them.
I am not going to cancel or stop watching, or better yet my wife isn't going to stop watching programs that she enjoys or give up "flippin' channels" to save a few dollars a month.
Streaming will reduce income to the conferences (or individual schools). Unless the SECN is bundled with the ACCN (streaming), I am not going to subscribe to it. The $.25 a month the SEC gets now from me now using the cable model will just go away, and if you multiply that by several millions of households it could really put a dent in conference income.
The risk of streaming is that you will lose the casual fan. The person that would only watch one or two games a year because it was on and he/she didn't have anything else to do and it was free.
How do you grow a market or fan base with streaming? For the consumer it like buying a pig in a poke. You have to buy it to try it?
Fortunately all of the pitfalls should be worked out before the ACC contract expires with ESPN.

Both of us are tied into ESPN until the 2030's. But to answer your question the cost simply goes up a few dollars a month for those who want the service if we move to a streaming world. For the SEC I don't think that would hurt very much.

While I agree with you totally about the advantages of keeping cable, remember if things are streamed there is no reason that a conference or several conferences couldn't package their games to a streaming service and the consumer could buy them for 1 price. For streamers however that would mean collecting the total cost of the package over 4 months instead of 12.

But remember this, a pair of tickets in the worst seats in the SEC will average costing you after donations about $1900, the complete ESPN / Sports tier on cable costs you about another $480 for the year. So if a streaming service offered all sport's for the year it could cost about the same. If they only offered football it would run about $90 a month for four months. Either way it's a helluva lot cheaper than attending the games.

(12-24-2017 07:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 01:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2017 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  The question then becomes, do the RSN eventually make the ACCN and SECN obsolete for ESPN?
Could ESPN allow those network contracts to expire in the future and continue to have access to the same content for a lot less money?

Not if we collectivize T3 rights. ESPN can prevent a lot of things but they can't prevent us from producing and selling our T3 on our own, and they can't prevent us from doing it in concert. What's more is they don't want us going down that road because if we can produce and sell T3 on our own what's to prevent us from doing the same for T1 and T2?

This is why they locked up the Big East properties of note for the ACC. At the time the BTN was self owned and self produced. At the time such networks needed carriage help. In the age of streaming that is no longer the case, especially after ESPN insisted that all of us standardize and invest in production facilities with uplinks at each of our campus sites.

They'll pay us slightly more than our expenses would be if we produced ourselves and give us a share of the ad revenue (which is what they essentially do now) to discourage schools from getting into the business.

On the flip side of that JR is the PAC.
They are trying to do everything for themselves and have yet to gain any traction. University Presidents want stability and as a whole would be reluctant to plunge their schools into a business venture without a guaranteed return using the PAC network as a real historical example.
If you want to sell your T3 rights, you have to have buyers ......and short of doing things for yourself the list of potential buyers keeps shrinking.
Fox Sports South carried a lot of ACC content produced by RAYCOM. It will be interesting in that ESPN will have to replace that content not FOX not only for FSS but for all of their RSNs.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but sometimes strategies have to change when circumstances change, and we are taking about a lot of money.

The flip side X is precisely why ESPN is going after the rights, streaming. I don't know how stream ready the PAC is, but the ACC and SEC are very ready. There are plenty of streaming services ready to take that product now. The PAC has labored for two reasons, the streamers weren't ready for them, and their viewing numbers are so low the sponsors weren't there. That's not the case for SEC football or ACC basketball, although your football numbers still need to come up you do have some very salable brands. But when the people in California don't turn out or tune in for anything but Cal / Stanford and USC/UCLA their problems are going to be present no matter what model they utilize.

Streaming? To what end?
I can now get all of the ESPN networks, SECN, the FOX sports networks all for one low price through my cable operator.
I do not get the B1G network, or the PAC series of networks because I choose not to pay for them.
I am not going to cancel or stop watching, or better yet my wife isn't going to stop watching programs that she enjoys or give up "flippin' channels" to save a few dollars a month.
Streaming will reduce income to the conferences (or individual schools). Unless the SECN is bundled with the ACCN (streaming), I am not going to subscribe to it. The $.25 a month the SEC gets now from me now using the cable model will just go away, and if you multiply that by several millions of households it could really put a dent in conference income.
The risk of streaming is that you will lose the casual fan. The person that would only watch one or two games a year because it was on and he/she didn't have anything else to do and it was free.
How do you grow a market or fan base with streaming? For the consumer it like buying a pig in a poke. You have to buy it to try it?
Fortunately all of the pitfalls should be worked out before the ACC contract expires with ESPN.

We'd still need a partner most likely which is why I suggested Amazon. Getting on Amazon Prime platform would guarantee distribution on a massive scale and we would most likely get paid pretty well to do it as a company like that wouldn't necessarily need us to add subscriptions although that would be part of it. They would need us to draw eyeballs to their other products. Amazon is both a distributor and an advertiser.

The thing about it is this...Amazon and Netflix and the others will likely never get into the production side. Not any time soon anyway because their business model depends on viewing content "on demand" for the most part. Producing live sporting events with the same quality as the major broadcast networks would represent a major expenditure. If, however, the conference or whatever sports entity was doing the production themselves then it's really not a big leap.

Currently, these streaming services have only experimented with piggybacking on the signal of regular broadcast networks. I would bet the time is coming when they try to acquire rights. Of course, if Disney's streaming services really take off then it might not matter.

Well if we need more product:

At 20: Add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech and either W.V.U. or Iowa State.

At 18: Add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and one of Kansas, Texas Tech, W.V.U.

At 16: Add Oklahoma, and one of Texas, Kansas, or Oklahoma State.

The or's are listed in order of preference.

(12-28-2017 11:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if we need more product:

At 20: Add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech and either W.V.U. or Iowa State.

At 18: Add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and one of Kansas, Texas Tech, W.V.U.

At 16: Add Oklahoma, and one of Texas, Kansas, or Oklahoma State.

The or's are listed in order of preference.

This is indeed the crux of the problem, JR.
Those are the schools that you (or the SEC) would want to add, which is not the same as what the networks would want (which is balance).

We all used to blame Texas, but I think the real battle is now between what the conferences want and what the networks want.
I'll bet, if the truth were known that the networks would much rather have Notre Dame in the B1G instead of the ACC and they are at a Mexican standoff about that situation, too.
The issue is that everyone wants the wheat and no body is willing to take the chaff.

(12-29-2017 10:17 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if we need more product:

At 20: Add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas Tech and either W.V.U. or Iowa State.

At 18: Add Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and one of Kansas, Texas Tech, W.V.U.

At 16: Add Oklahoma, and one of Texas, Kansas, or Oklahoma State.

The or's are listed in order of preference.

This is indeed the crux of the problem, JR.
Those are the schools that you (or the SEC) would want to add, which is not the same as what the networks would want (which is balance).

We all used to blame Texas, but I think the real battle is now between what the conferences want and what the networks want.
I'll bet, if the truth were known that the networks would much rather have Notre Dame in the B1G instead of the ACC and they are at a Mexican standoff about that situation, too.
The issue is that everyone wants the wheat and no body is willing to take the chaff.

That's because the coming pay models don't pay for chaff. The conferences would be wise to stick to their guns this time.

I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

(12-29-2017 12:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

I think if we landed OU and KU that we could get Texas, especially with Arkansas, A&M and to a lesser extent Missouri already on board. The question is would we have to take OSU to get OU. If so we may not be able to take WVU. I don't think Texas has to take Tech with them, but that too could be an issue. We'll see.

(12-29-2017 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

I think if we landed OU and KU that we could get Texas, especially with Arkansas, A&M and to a lesser extent Missouri already on board. The question is would we have to take OSU to get OU. If so we may not be able to take WVU. I don't think Texas has to take Tech with them, but that too could be an issue. We'll see.

If the SEC grabs OU and OSU, then the entire Big 12 is up for grabs. Texas would be under heavy fan pressure to either follow rivals OU, A&M and Arkansas into the SEC or cave under political pressure to save the Big 12 again. Who wins will determine UT’s landing spot. Also defections from the PAC could stabilize the Big 12 and possibly the Big Ten.

(12-29-2017 08:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

I think if we landed OU and KU that we could get Texas, especially with Arkansas, A&M and to a lesser extent Missouri already on board. The question is would we have to take OSU to get OU. If so we may not be able to take WVU. I don't think Texas has to take Tech with them, but that too could be an issue. We'll see.

If the SEC grabs OU and OSU, then the entire Big 12 is up for grabs. Texas would be under heavy fan pressure to either follow rivals OU, A&M and Arkansas into the SEC or cave under political pressure to save the Big 12 again. Who wins will determine UT’s landing spot. Also defections from the PAC could stabilize the Big 12 and possibly the Big Ten.

I believe Texas has the political clout to leave, especially if they take Tech with them. The idea is to make the additions that would be the most enticing to them.

(12-29-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 08:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

I think if we landed OU and KU that we could get Texas, especially with Arkansas, A&M and to a lesser extent Missouri already on board. The question is would we have to take OSU to get OU. If so we may not be able to take WVU. I don't think Texas has to take Tech with them, but that too could be an issue. We'll see.

If the SEC grabs OU and OSU, then the entire Big 12 is up for grabs. Texas would be under heavy fan pressure to either follow rivals OU, A&M and Arkansas into the SEC or cave under political pressure to save the Big 12 again. Who wins will determine UT’s landing spot. Also defections from the PAC could stabilize the Big 12 and possibly the Big Ten.

I believe Texas has the political clout to leave, especially if they take Tech with them. The idea is to make the additions that would be the most enticing to them.

For Texas? OU and Tech.

For OU? Definitely OSU and then preferably Texas.

Only problem: could A&M block the Texas and Tech moves?

So add Texahoma. Then wait for ACC additions in the 2030’s.

(12-29-2017 10:38 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 08:52 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would prefer to get all this over with as soon as possible. That's part of the reason I tend to think in terms of adding more schools as opposed to fewer.

With that said, I have no problem just waiting until all these contracts expire if that's what it takes to really get what we want. By that point, we should have enough leverage that it won't really matter what other leagues are offering.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia

I think those 4 each offer us something valuable and worth having. Now obviously, UT and OU are really the only schools that pad our bottom line at this point, but the others give us something tangible as well.

Kansas is an elite basketball brand that will help draw attention to our schools when football season is over. They'll help sell our package to more fans across the country. They're good for TV, but also for competition. Who doesn't want Kansas rolling into your arena every season or every other season? I know I'd buy a ticket for that. It's also a new market, a regional rival for other schools, and an AAU. Underrated reason is that they're good cannon fodder in football. Our league doesn't need to add so many quality football brands that it actually makes the schedule too difficult. It's good to have a break.

West Virginia is another strong regional brand that increases our exposure in both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's a good football and basketball brand that adds more to the middle. Even though the state of WV isn't large by any means, their spread out fan base should come in handy when streaming really takes hold.

16 would be a really good number, but 18 allows for more regional divisions. That and we can have a conference semi-final.

I think if we landed OU and KU that we could get Texas, especially with Arkansas, A&M and to a lesser extent Missouri already on board. The question is would we have to take OSU to get OU. If so we may not be able to take WVU. I don't think Texas has to take Tech with them, but that too could be an issue. We'll see.

If the SEC grabs OU and OSU, then the entire Big 12 is up for grabs. Texas would be under heavy fan pressure to either follow rivals OU, A&M and Arkansas into the SEC or cave under political pressure to save the Big 12 again. Who wins will determine UT’s landing spot. Also defections from the PAC could stabilize the Big 12 and possibly the Big Ten.

I believe Texas has the political clout to leave, especially if they take Tech with them. The idea is to make the additions that would be the most enticing to them.

For Texas? OU and Tech.

For OU? Definitely OSU and then preferably Texas.

Only problem: could A&M block the Texas and Tech moves?

So add Texahoma. Then wait for ACC additions in the 2030’s.

Could A&M block Texas and Tech? No. It takes 75% of voting members to approve an invitation. Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina would not vote against Oklahoma or Texas and taking their little brothers just opens the door for Clemson and F.S.U. to one day join with a Carolina and Virginia school. And both Florida and South Carolina have either already sponsored their in state rivals for membership, or wanted to (in South Carolina's case).