(04-22-2018 11:20 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The SEC had interest in Texas (& Texas A&M) for 50+ years or so. Having secured half of that, one expects the other half, Texas, remains a potential target though the dynamics have changed. One day the SEC may go to sixteen, but not beyond, at least not immediately. Certainly Texas would be on the "jewel" list. UNC, OU, and no more than two or three others would make the list. That said, "availabilty" is the critical factor. Unlike some others, Texas has, comparatively, the greater "flexibility" to make the major change in a few years. That noted, Texas would need to have a change in attitude per the SEC and drop the grudges. The SEC would have to do some work in this regard as well. That can happen on a dime when conditions are ripe. I would not rule out Texas one day being in the SEC. Actually, it would be a great fit if minds opened to untainted reasoning.

Conference size matters. Getting too big is a concern. Willy-nilly additions of coattail schools aren't happening. Texas would not need sycophants to go to the SEC; not that they didn't love having them in the old SWC and the more recent B12 structures.

In 1992 I would have agreed with you 100%. But then in 1992 the conferences were growing by their own set of standards and to meet their own agenda.

By 2010 the heavy hand of networks working for the advertising dollar took us to a different tier of control, or lack thereof. I have nothing against Missouri, but they are not a jewel. What they were was a means of controlling markets, not for the SEC, but for ESPN.

If you look at the composition of the conferences none of us have been encouraged to grow by controlling or monopolizing our existing market footprints. Rather, we were encouraged by the subscription fee model to not take 2nd schools because they simply didn't add to the subscriber count. The same wasn't true for the network.

Look at what ESPN holds through the AAC, ACC, and SEC. They own every major and mid major program from Virginia over to Missouri and South to Texas. Not one single school with a viable fan base in that area belongs to FOX. This means that if an advertiser wants to reach out to football fans in that area they have to go through ESPN which translates into prime advertising rates for ESPN.

I don't think the end game for ESPN in Texas is just the Longhorns. It's a state of 28 million people and one of the most sought after college sports states in the nation. The trick to Texas is to monopolize the market for ESPN without letting the conferences involved do the same.

Texas in the SEC would be huge for us and has been the game since the SEC first thought of expanding to the West. And while Texas alone would be what we are after, I'm not so sure that Texas Tech would be excluded by ESPN. To do so would be a move that didn't follow their M.O.. ESPN would most likely want to have all of the schools of note in Texas divided between the AAC, ACC, and SEC if they are to follow what they have done everywhere else. And since Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are back doors into DFW I would expect they would be included.

Ideally we would expand to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma. Both are 1 plus billion dollar economic impact drivers within their sphere of influence. Both are blue blood football schools. Either is an excellent addition but the pair would massively change the value of the conference.

But the pair begs some questions. Do the networks really want that much leverage in the hand of one conference? Or do they see such a conference as being too powerful for the health of their other conference investments? Do they see the inequity of it as somehow damaging to the game?

Since 2010 every move any conference has made has been approved by one of the networks. They establish and communicate what the move is worth to them and set the proposed payouts for said move accordingly. If the move profits us, as did Missouri, it is made. Therein lies the control mechanism that has shifted realignment circa '92 into what we have today.

So what I am stating is that in the current climate the networks could well have other reasons for moving past 16, especially if they are looking to control every avenue into massive advertising regions, like Texas. And no, I don't believe for a moment that the Missouri addition was an SEC idea.

In '90-92 the conference carefully laid out its plans for expansion and the targets have remained essentially the same for us for these past 25 years plus. But with each successive addition the list not only grows shorter by the school involved but the added value removes other names as well.

I see North Carolina as a jewel, but I'm not sure now that the product value is changing if they would really add that much more to the bottom line.

I would sincerely hope you were right about the number, but not even Slive would commit to it. When asked he simply said conferences can be as large as they need to be so long as the moves were profitable.