JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,323
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8022
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(01-28-2019 11:10 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: (01-27-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-27-2019 10:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: (01-26-2019 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote: If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?
My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.
If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.
If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.
If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.
While the SEC is 1st in average revenue, the Big 12 is 3rd in average revenue. We won't have access to the 2nd best product...the Big Ten, but we will have an ability to absorb valuable parts of the 3rd best product.
I think we have to look at this in terms of consolidating revenue earning potential. The Big 12 schools do, after all, dominate their region.
From the other thread on revenue:
Big 12:
1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447
Total: $1,128,257,788
Average Per Team: $112,825,779
-------------------------------------------
Now, Texas and Oklahoma are obviously the big dogs, but let's look at the averages when you remove UT and OU:
$94,773,582.5
So, nearly a $20M per team difference when you add in UT and OU.
The most interesting thing about these numbers to me is that's roughly the ACC average when you include all of their top schools. Remove a couple of top revenue producers from the ACC and things look fairly dire.
ACC averages:
13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224
Total: $1,327,372,397
Average Per Team: $94,812,314
The only school in the ACC that is currently generating more than our average is Florida State, but we won't be cracking the ACC for a while assuming it ever happens.
It's fair to consider that the ACC will get a boost from the ACC Network, but no such boost will be coming for Big 12 schools because their content will never be bundled. So their 3rd tier contracts are more varied than what the ACC will be bringing forth.
BUT...any 3rd tier deal for the SEC would be more valuable if it contained some Big 12 schools because the inventory would be larger if for no other reason.
Let me suggest that part of the reason the Big 12 is on the chopping block is because their pieces are the more valuable ones. The other factors have been discussed, and they are certainly relevant, but considering the ACC is at the bottom of revenue then I think it's fair to say that very little of the ACC product would actually add value to the SEC or anyone else.
When a company wants to acquire new properties in the same industry, do they go all out for the ones that are weaker or do they try to "merge" with the ones that will combine for greater marketshare?
There are a lot of reasons the Big 12 is not doing well, but I think the networks have not done much to solidify the foundation of the league because it would be easier to absorb its value. The Big 12's unique situation with regard to its small markets doesn't really detract from its quality of content. What the Big 12 needs is access to better audiences rather than a wholesale dismembering.
The ACC would be harder to digest and so perhaps that is one of the key reasons ESPN has spent more time trying to strengthen it when it would have been easier to tear it apart.
Personally, I think we should go for about 6 schools from the Big 12. The Texahoma 4 is probably the best starting point. I think Kansas should be in there. Not sure who the 6th should be other than West Virginia is probably needed by the ACC.
The 1st tier is stronger with Texas and Oklahoma aboard, that is obvious. I think our 2nd and 3rd tier is stronger with a few others aboard.
---------------------------------------------
For reference, the numbers of the SEC:
SEC:
2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651
Total: $1,926,694,856
Average Per Team: $137,621,061
Okay, let's say the first 5 are Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. Who's next? I see no need of Baylor or T.C.U. if we have the 3 state Texas schools.
I would favor Iowa State. Kansas might want KState salvaged and that could be an impasse. But since I don't think the Big 10 would take Kansas by their lonesome, I think Kansas joins with their buds.
Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri could form a division.
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech could form the other.
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee and Vanderbilt the 3rd.
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina the 4th.
But the optimum solution would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas.
At that point we have 5 of the original Big 8. I've seen on here talks about Colorado to the Big 10, but I might start wondering about Colorado in the SEC at the point. And then the possibility of poaching Nebraska would give us 7 of the 8 (no Kansas State) and 3 of the 4 Texas schools (no Baylor) that created the Big 12.
Crazy talk I'm sure, but 88 pages into this thread, crazy starts making sense.
If we got Nebraska and Colorado, we'd need 2 more to make it work. (If we got 1 of the two, I still like 3x7 for a 21 team conference,, with one of the divisions being the Old Big 8 schools all together.)
If we assume the ACC is off limits, then perhaps the SEC starts looking to poach more from the Big 10? The old Indiana to the SEC stuff? Or Purdue? Purdue vs. Vandy as a conference game could be fun, but probably doesn't bring much value to the table. So maybe its Maryland?
Or maybe we look west and take Arizona or Arizona State? Or at that point check in USC? I really don't know. That would be 12 from the "west" ( 7 Big 8 schools + 3 Texas + the Arizona schools) on one side of the conference, and the original SEC 12 in the "east."
(Yes, I know I'm getting ridiculous, but the the main idea I'm trying to present is the idea of a Big 8 reunion in the SEC).
That's an interesting concept to ponder. But, the original intent of the conference in '90-92 was the extraction of the most valuable schools in the SWC: Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M. When considering how to attract any of them after Texas was less enthused over their options was to play with what kind of pairings it would take to get A&M. Houston was kicked around, as was Rice, and later T.C.U., but no consensus was ever reached.
Finally, the main targets were set: Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Clemson and Florida State, or all the teams of value in a much larger Southwestern market acquisition and the two schools from our own region that most typified the SEC brand. And all of that was in '90-92.
So we've picked up Arkansas and Texas A&M, landed South Carolina instead of Clemson, landed Missouri instead of Florida State when I think we realized that ESPN wasn't going to relent on F.S.U. because of their investment in the ACC and Florida State's anchoring of value there.
I'd say that primarily our focus will still be on Texas and Oklahoma. The question how do we get them to say yes? So far we have been unable to attain them in a group and our approach has had to change.
Initially the SEC had a plan to 16 which I listed above. We also had a plan to 20 but it wasn't our ideal plan, but rather a defensive strategy in case the Big 10 raided the ACC. I think ideally we would like to end with Texas and Oklahoma. The question is would we go to 18 to get them, or even 20 to keep the Big 10 from getting them. We were willing to consider 20 for defensive purposes in '90-92 would we still be willing to do something like that today? (BTW: Jackie Sherril discussed the 20 plan and it might still be available with a google search.)
A lot will depend on how the P5 decide to exercise autonomy over conference structuring. We know we can utilize half divisions of 5 schools or 4 schools for the sake of scheduling because that rule is still on the books. Could we agree to having 3 divisions? We won't know until someone wants to go there.
I'm not sure we would poach the Big 10. Look at a map of the states. Nebraska and Colorado would be massive outliers from the geographic center of the SEC. Iowa State is a stretch as Kansas would be. But Oklahoma, and Texas not so much.
But if we start thinking in terms of 3 divisions then the moves you suggest are not so far fetched because a division of regionally grouped schools does become possible and the idea that the SEC could become two conferences within one league for the sake of leverage for contracts and internal scheduling convenience with 1 combined overhead which essentially reduces each school's conference obligations by almost half, then yes it becomes possible.
|
|