(10-11-2017 12:44 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  [quote='AllTideUp' pid='14663280' dateline='1507696066'

Kansas don't offer a lot of money here. KU by themselves is a decent property although not a windfall addition like UT or OU. I'm intrigued though by KU's decision to jack up their football spending. It's obvious that they're sending a message. What's the message though? Who is it intended for?

I think the message is that we're getting serious about generating revenue and about upping our brand value. Personally, I think the message is intended for the SEC. I think this because the B1G is allegedly already interested in what KU brings. If that's true then there's only one suitor you would need to go out of your way to impress. I also think this because of the article from a few years ago that mentioned, in passing, KU's interest in the SEC. I think they want to stay in relationship with Mizzou, OU, and probably UT as well.

I forget the article, but someone tied to KU was asked if the Sec would be interested in adding the Jayhawks and he said the SEC wasn't too interested. This was before Mizzou was added I believe. Kansas investing in their greatest weakness is one way to help ensure they might have a landing spot should the Big 12 implode. I don't see any sec President turning down KU's application unless the payouts decrease.
[/quote]

Attendance, Gross Total Revenue, and projected Business Valuations all are below the SEC MEAN and say the will not add to the bottom line. A state of under 3 million doesn't help their cause either.

For Kansas to be included either ESPN has to pay for them, or they represent a second for either Texas or Oklahoma.