(05-05-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2018 01:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-05-2018 01:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2018 01:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what leaves me a bit puzzled here is that only the SEC has stadium and luxury box standards that we seek from member schools. So why would Kansas throw 350 million at a football stadium and indoor practice facilities? Only in the SEC does every member school have indoor practice facilities. Only in the SEC would they need to prove their investment in football?

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the peculiar nature of this?

It's not just you. My thought would be that someone, somewhere has told Kansas that they need to step their game up.

I can only think of two reasons why a school would agree to spend that much money on a project.

1. They've been guaranteed it will pay off and they just need to make a good faith effort.

2. They've been told they have no shot unless they do something drastic.

I tend to think it's the former in KU's situation because they are not without stature...flagship school, national fan base with an elite basketball brand, and they proved in the Mangino days that they can have a pulse if they put their mind to it.

I believe it was Sankey who said a while back that we should look to our previous additions to get a clue on what our approach would be for the next round. He mentioned AAU schools and contiguous states. Well, we're not getting any ACC schools so Kansas fits that stated criteria about as well as anyone.

I hadn't really thought about it from the angle of luxury seating and amenities, but you're right about that...the SEC is going to put more emphasis on that than anyone else.

It was an unnamed Kansas official who was quoted a few years back as saying the SEC would be an ideal landing spot. An unnamed SEC official was quoted in the same article saying that wasn't a direction they thought they would go in, but he didn't say "never" or "no interest." Missouri was a bridge into the region and Kansas secures a pretty significant slice of that region. They are the yin and yang, if you will, of that part of the country.

But yes, it's always made more sense to me that Kansas would drop that kind of money on football to get the attention of the SEC rather than necessarily to appease anyone else.

And it's always made more sense to me that a conservative state that was centered more around life in small cities and small towns as opposed to metropolitan mega centers while also being the sort of place that is passionate about local college athletics would be a better fit in the SEC as opposed to the B1G regardless of any Midwestern flavor.

Alright, we are in agreement on reasoning. So the next question is straight forward. Who comes with them?

My theory a while back was that ESPN would try to push Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC because I felt like those were the products that would profit the network the most and that the SEC was the most convenient place to stick them.

But that's just a theory.

That's logical and the same thought had crossed my mind. I'll be doing a thread shortly in which I'll go into to depth about why 16 is a myth and how it doesn't fit in with a streaming model while larger conferences do.

From a regional point of view you can't maximize the value of Texas and Oklahoma unless you take enough of the schools they care about playing.

If we made the move to take Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas whether we took Oklahoma State or not. It makes Missouri folks feel at home, restores rivalries, and more importantly makes the SECN a must for that entire region. The way to keep subscription fees will be to encompass what whole regions crave.

Kansas and Texas are two schools that ESPN has more interest in from the Big 12.

If FOX is silently in agreement on the moves however, we may not jump to 18. There's a lot that has to play out here. And funny things can happen if it looks like the coming moves will be the final ones for some time.

Just how nailed down is N.D.? If I'm the Big 10 there are no two additions that do more for me than Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Yeah, yeah, I know N.D. has intentionally eluded them for decades, but if you have to go all in to get access to the playoffs who would you choose? A conference that pays you 23 million more per year and would put you in a division where if you beat two schools Penn State and Ohio State you get in, or would you rather go through Clemson and Florida State? I'm not saying N.D. takes that deal but their partial membership is easier to buy out. Their hockey is already in the Big 10, and Football is their game and the Big 10 is building lacrosse.

If the Big 10 bolsters the West with OU and nails down their exclusivity in major cities with N.D. then they are looking at a fatter contract and the whole thing makes geographical sense. It's their best move to 16 without taking Texas.

If the SEC adds Texas and Kansas and the Big 10 added OU and N.D. that cements both conferences in spades.

Plus look at strategically. If we ever do move to 20 to fully capture the regions we hold then those two sets of moves leaves the SEC & Big 10 primed to expand eastward and fulfilled to the West.

Would this happen? Probably not, but the logic and completeness of those two moves are strategies that have to be considered. The money involved for both would be huge, large enough to make a 350 million dollar investment worthwhile. And large enough to remain a lure should a larger sized conference afford more leverage whether for streaming or for a conference cable network, or both.

So I toss that idea out there partially to explore it, partially to stir the pot in a slow period, but mostly because it would be no nonsense high dollar plays for both the SEC and Big 10.

I think ND making that move would be difficult. It could cause some degree of instability in the ACC and with the ACCN coming on line, I'm not sure ESPN would risk it. I think the ACC would really have to get something special in return in order to not put up a fuss and I don't know what that could be in this scenario.

If Oklahoma ends up going to the B1G here then I could maybe see Colorado breaking rank and joining them.

I think the PAC is in a precarious position, but if they allow CU to leave for the purpose of satiating the B1G in the near term then perhaps there's more value to be had elsewhere.

The PAC could very easily accommodate 5 schools...let's say Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State. At that point, they perhaps set themselves up for a more favorable TV deal in the not too distant future if they're willing to play ball now.

The ACC could take West Virginia along with Notre Dame going in full and we have 4 major conferences with 16 schools each.

The B1G and the SEC both get new brands and markets. The Big 12 is disbanded with only Baylor suffering relegation. The PAC earns a more favorable position with the networks. The ACC gets rounded out with solid additions.