(06-13-2018 02:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 12:05 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Another advantage that the SEC has is that we don't tend to sponsor as many sports. This alone reduces travel costs. This fits pretty closely with the Big 12 model so there's less incongruence when you match the two of them up.

On the topic of numbers, I actually think 20 becomes an optimal number as we move more into the Midwest and Southwest. Travel is one of the reasons why.

Having made the trip from the heart of SEC country to College Station, I can tell you that it's a haul. If we're expanding into that region and we already have then it makes sense to create divisions that allow those schools to have reasonably close travel partners.

Most of the SEC schools are actually pretty close to one another and within easy driving distance. Some of the more recent additions are further from the core of the conference so it can create issues for travel. The best way to mitigate travel is to make sure long trips aren't required more than necessary. Make them a little more sparing and a multi-regional league can work just fine.

Even then, I'm not super high on Texas Tech. Lubbock is not a short trip for anyone so I'd prefer TCU if for no more reason than it's a heck of a lot easier to get to.

If we looked at 20 then we could do this...

Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and West Virginia

That breaks down into 4 pretty concise divisions.

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

You also have the added benefit of ensuring an even distribution of home and away games within each division in the event we go to 9 conference games.

I like that arrangement at 20. If we were thoroughly convinced that the ACC would remain and not be poached that would be a pretty nice way to finish things out.

I think the plan is to move to 16 with two more from the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma are the preferred pairing. But whether we did that with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, or Texas and Texas Tech, I think our preference would be to wait and see what happens to the East before committing more slots.

That's why the only thing that could make us take more would be the acceptance of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State only to have Texas say they were ready to join too. At 18 I think we hold 1 slot each for a school from North Carolina and Virginia.

But if we were assured the ACC would be a gestalt, then finishing out with Kansas and another, West Virginia makes sense, could very well prove to be a decisive move that from that point on hamstrings our competition to match our branding and markets.

I noticed that the FSU President publicly stated that he expected anywhere from a 10-15 million dollar boost for the ACC Network when it comes online.

I'm not sure I buy that. It's entirely possible he's just saying that to give the donors what they want to hear. In the event it doesn't pan out then no harm, no foul as a school like FSU will have a home elsewhere if they want one. It's not like anyone would blame the Presidents for the failure of the network anyway should things turn out poorly.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible things work out pretty well. If the SEC and ACC Networks are bundled together then that's a pretty strong footprint with a lot of content. Maybe they make pretty good money on it.

The long term issue is the survival of the cable model itself. The content is valuable, but eventually a system that rewards multiple feeds will lose popularity.