(08-20-2018 09:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 08:46 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:42 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(08-19-2018 09:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most profitable thing for Oklahoma and Texas to do is to join the SEC as a pair with no tag-a-longs. After next year that would boost our payouts over the 51 million mark. Then Texas would split the recruits from Texas with only one other in state school, A&M. Oklahoma would continue to recruit DFW and both separate themselves from the schools they elevated to their status.

If the PAC takes Tech and T.C.U. fine, it still won't be the destination that holds the interest the way OU and UT would in the SEC with A&M and Arkansas and Missouri.

The future for college football is not rosy, but the future of college football will remain lucrative in the Southeast far beyond the life of college football in the Northeast and the West, and probably longer than around the mid Atlantic.

We have the recruits and between Texas and the SEC the lions share for the nation. Our culture will follow football longer than any other and we share diamond sports as a priority.

Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

in the West and an East that looks like this:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

would create one helluva super conference with enough branding in each division to sell those on a cable network separately and profitably.

We might easily take our earnings north of 60 million with the T3 rights on those two divisions bundled, or sold separately.

Each division has 5 solid brands and with the exception of Vandy, no real perennial cellar dweller.

Hands down that's the best conference in college football ever! And only improving on the current SEC.

If the schools get to move according to their self interest, and not strictly at the network's behest then this is still possible.

We profit with either and a little brother. We blows the walls off the sucker with both.

I certainly have no desire to get into a pissing match but I thought you might find this interesting in light of the tag along/little brother comments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...09aa82798d

In 1990, the SEC considered expanding with UT, A&M, Arkansas, Florida St, Miami and South Carolina. Again, I have no desire to get into an internet fight but would like to point out a few things.

In 1990, A&M had 41,710 students enrolled and averaged 54,318 that year in the SWC ---- the Tech game having the highest attendance. I might add that the AAU invited A&M in 2001.

This past year Tech had 36,996 students enrolled and averaged 55,065 in football.

With SEC membership, I wouldn't rule out 40-45k students and an average attendance in football around 70k. IMHO, Tech is not a little brother but rather a big University.

For lack of a better term is it fair to say that Texas Tech is the #3 state school in Texas?

My point all along has been that if the SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State the move is profitable in that the combination still adds value, just not as much value as Oklahoma by themselves. Along the same lines the additions of Texas and Texas Tech add value to the SEC. Just not as much as Texas by themselves.

If the choice was between the two pairs then Clearly Texas and Texas Tech add more value than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

In fact the order when studied is the following pairs add value in descending order:
1. Texas and Oklahoma (and by a very wide margin)
2. Texas and Kansas
3. Texas and Texas Tech
4. Texas and Iowa State
5. Texas and Kansas State
6. Oklahoma and Kansas
7. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State

There is no whizzing contest here. It boils down to revenue value.

There is no arguing that if the SEC is only expanding to 16 the best possible pairing is Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Kansas is possible but I don't consider it as likely to transpire because of in state politics in Texas and Oklahoma.

Should the SEC move to 16 in the next round of musical chairs I expect that ESPN will push for Texas to move to either the SEC or ACC and since they hold the LHN until 2031 they will wield some influence.

If that's the case then it is also likely that Texas will push for the inclusion of Tech. There are some serious advantages in that pairing to ESPN for market control, and to the SEC for market leverage. It is much better to have 3 solid state schools in a rabid market of 28 million than it is to have 2 state schools in a market of 4 million.

But strictly from a SEC standpoint taking only Texas and Oklahoma adds 2.3 billion in economic impact to the conference as opposed to 1.5 billion with the pairing of Tech with Texas.

Realignment has to line up 3 moving targets: 1. The network's interest, 2. The conference's interest, and 3. The school's interest.

The likelihood of lining up #3 with #1 is probably the toughest. The SEC has one clear objective to the West. We want to have the largest share of the DFW market. Either Texas or Oklahoma gives us that. We want the most possible revenue we can get out of the additions. That means we would prefer a pairing that included Texas because they are more valuable than Oklahoma. Ideally we would take them both. If state politics get involved and Texas decides that the advantages the SEC offers them in being friendly to their minor sports, offering their fans less travel, offering their fans a more appealing schedule, and restoring their old rivals is what they decide to pursue and their politics necessitate Texas Tech it's obviously going to get done. Why? ESPN would control the 3 top state schools in Texas. The SEC would be making more revenue and would have the top ad rate in a state of 28 million and it plays into our Spanish language broadcasts in the 22 Mexican cities we already broadcast in. And in as much as it permits Texas to play the other two state schools annually, reunites them with Arkansas and opens up Louisiana to them for recruiting I think it would be a go for them as well.

The problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is in doubling down in a small state. That's not as appealing to ESPN and is not preferable for the SEC, although we would do it if that was the only way to land OU and get the share of DFW we want should Texas show no interest.

Truthfully there wouldn't be much interest in Kansas as a market where the Network would be concerned. ESPN might go for that if OU and KU were the pair headed to the SEC, but I would think given the way they have organized their product that they would prefer to take two in Texas to add to A&M to dominate that market. It's much more lucrative in that they would get to triple dip for at least 9 weeks out of the season in that 28 million market.

I wondered before if Texas / Tech / OU / OSU wanted in as a foursome if the deal would be done? Again it's a no brainer for revenue. The issue will be does anyone want to deal with the issues surrounding a 18 member conference when the Big 10 and PAC would be pissed about it and would want to be obstructionists for rules changes permitting 3 divisions.

So for those reasons I think 16 is more likely. If so and Texas wants in there's a great chance Tech gets in too. I don't see UT sticking their necks out for Baylor at all. T.C.U. is a bit of a question mark considering their current A.D. But politics usually trump those kind of concerns so with any legislative push back Tech would probably be #16.

That's how I see it. I think Kansas would prefer the Big 10 and I think Texas might prefer that OU go with them. That really leaves Texas recruits 3 choices for playing in a conference that annually sends more players to the NFL than any other conference and it gives the Horns a leg up on the snowbound Sooners.

Quietly demoting T.C.U. and Baylor would also help the 3 state schools competitively.


And for the record in 1990 the SEC was looking at Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Florida State, and Clemson. Miami was mentioned but not part of the initial plan. I don't care what the Washington Post says (besides it was a speculative article). There was a 6th candidate however and that was one that was only talking through Texas and was only interested in joining if Texas did (Oklahoma).

Miami did have talks with us, but that was after Texas backed out and therefore OU, and after Clemson did as well then South Carolina applied. I don't remember now if we talked with Miami before or after F.S.U.'s decline.

There are a lot of political reasons that were complicating much of that period. But yeah, we were looking at moving to 16 in one swoop in 1990 and not everyone involved wanted to be mentioned (OU & Clemson). South Carolina and Miami were backups.

If you want a fun read then try to find Jackie Sherrill (then at Miss State) talking about our defensive plan to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to raid the ACC. That one mentions Miami as part of the 20 along with several other schools.

I'm OK with Tech being the #3 school in Texas as long as Miss St accepts being the #2 school in the state of Miss and Auburn being the #2 school in the state of Alabama. I also realize those #2's are long time fixtures in the SEC. All Universities start somewhere and some were handed a silver spoon by politics.

I also realize UT and OU bring more value but OU wants the BIG 10 conference(for reasons I have no clue about). Adding Tech and UT solidifies the state of Texas as an SEC state with viewers from El Paso to Orange and Amarillo to Brownsville.

If the SEC goes to 18, the PAC can add whoever they want along with the Big 10.

There have backroom talks between Texas and the SEC since prior to 1990. Stop and think about just why it is Oklahoma brass may prefer the Big 10?

Let's say that Texas during those backroom talks has already expressed a preference either to the SEC or to ESPN and that those discussions will never be disclosed to have happened. And let's say that Texas has expressed a preference to head to the SEC and to bring Tech, and that further Texas expressed no desire to see the Sooners in their new conference because Texas has realized that elevating T.C.U. and Baylor, and having the Sooners in the same conference, and by proxy elevating OSU in recruiting standing in Texas has been the #1 cause of Longhorn decline.

Remember in the old days before scholarship limits Texas could stockpile for Royal. Today the legitimization of Baylor, T.C.U., and Oklahoma State, and the inclusion of Oklahoma in conference have elevated all of those programs abilities to pick off key recruits and has diluted the talent pool available for Texas, Texas A&M and Tech. So let's say for the sake of argument that Texas wants to compete only with A&M and Tech for those recruits, that they want SEC branding, to regain the leverage of a monopoly of Texas schools under one conference banner at the P4 level, and that they want to distance their chief rival from feasting on Texas recruits. Therefore a backroom agreement that the SEC would not take Oklahoma if Texas heads our way, a deal that will never be mentioned, was done, and what's more Oklahoma has sensed a major cooling in talks with the SEC. To protect their standing with the Oklahoma fan base the President and certain BOR representatives might have to get out in front to spin the situation to make it seem like they wanted the Big 10 over the SEC (and they might anyway) and then to sell the need to separate from OSU even harder than is politically acceptable within that state because they already know they are off the table for the SEC and the only way they get into the Big 10 is without OSU. That would explain why some OU people who claim inside connections are (a) pushing the Big 10 so hard, and (b) why they are setting the stage for a separation from OSU.

Now ponder that and tell me what you think.

That is an interesting theory. With TCU and Baylor out of the P5/P4 picture, UT, A&M and Tech will get the lions share of top Texas recruits. OU will always be OU regardless of whether they play in the Big 12 or Big 10.