(10-14-2013 10:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 10:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 10:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.

I'm not sold on the Big12 going the way of the dodo. That's to say that even if there is a change I don't think those programs find their way to the SEC.

College football fans love their regional identity and throwing those traditional powers into the SEC is unlikely to satisfy their fans, or ours.

That's the bow of a greater argument against super conferences in general I suppose.

I understand that aspect of the argument as well. But we have a network to feed now and that is part of the super conference dna. If you accept that outside of a few original conference schools that the SEC is about Flagship state schools who are preferably AAU and from a new market then our expansion list to 16 is rather brief: Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia (Oklahoma excepted on AAU). If you are talking about AAU state flagship schools who add profitability you can add Texas.

If you want a solid cultural fit then the answer is none of them. If you want a general cultural fit then throw out Kansas.

Sixteen is going to be necessary for the coming structural changes designed to enhance revenue. So if our options are realistically Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia and an outside possibility of Duke with U.N.C. then you are down to cases on which conference can be poached. I don't think the ACC can be poached before the D4 is determined. I do think for the sake of structure and profitability that the elimination of the Big 12 will be essential. Maybe not at this time, but at sometime down the road.

Then there is the matter of overcoming scheduling issues within the SEC. If you are considering the difficulties of this quagmire Texas and Oklahoma make more sense than North Carolina and Virginia. With two more additions from the West the division will break down more along the lines of the L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools with the newbies and the heart of the Old SEC in the East with their traditional rivals (save S.Car.).

It really can't be argued that if the SEC had both Texas and A&M that a state of 26 million would be owned by the SEC outright no matter where the other Texas schools wind up. With Oklahoma the SEC has the RRSO, and the restoration of the Horns and Aggies, plus all of the content matches between those two and Arkansas and L.S.U. and Missouri.

If the West is broken into two pods and the East into two pods then you could rotate a West divisional playoff game between Kansas City, New Orleans, and Dallas, and rotate the East games between Charlotte, Atlanta, or Jacksonville. The exposure, the revenue generated by the two additional conference championship games, and the additional content would be huge for revenue.

The drawback to Texas and Oklahoma would be the perceived lack of strength added to hoops.

As far as adding two strong brands to a conference swollen with strong brands all I can say is that the path to the playoffs would be no harder than before. Win your division and you are in. The conference champions of the 4 surviving conferences will eventually play it off. So winning your division puts your destiny in your own hands.

But I totally understand your viewpoint and have held that viewpoint myself before. I just think the paradigm has shifted significantly.

All great points.

I just feel that we are starting to reach the point where conference realignment will have a deleterious effect on the long term health of the game and the conferences. When historical games start to get broken up interest will decline for many. It's the death of the pageantry and I think that's a cornerstone of the game in the minds of a large portion of the fans.

There is also a disconnect for fans. Say OU and UT join the SEC, will the Red-River Rivalry be a true SEC event in anything but name? It's all a guess but I think the pursuit of viewers and fans is going to start to erode the base when the brand name starts to separate from its own essence and classic match ups are replaced for a viewing audience outside the core.

I think we are looking at the same tea leaves and reading them differently. Television has already eroded the pageantry and traditions. It started with selling tickets with no kickoff time printed on them. It continued with forcing L.S.U. (e.g.) to play day games and Auburn and Alabama to tee it up at 11:00 for some OOC games. Then came Thursday and Friday nights when work and family obligations to children kept you away from your games. Initially we gave up regional games to help networks maximize market appeal so we got L.S.U. vs Oregon, Auburn vs West Virginia, and Alabama vs Michigan. I miss Southern Miss and La Tech quite frankly.

So I guess what I'm saying is that nothing is going to save that now and it's been dying now for a couple of decades, just by small cuts instead of all in one thrust. So I see realignment (if handled properly) as being a way to reestablish some of the pageantry and tradition.

I've been an advocate of 3 divisions of 6. I think having 5 divisional games provides a much more stable base for scheduling and establishing rivalries than 3. I think it makes for a more regional feel than 16, and for a truer divisional champion. Games like the RRSO would still have the feel of the Western Division if it were comprised of Arkansas, L.S.U., Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. It would still be quite the regional event. In a conference of just 16 with 3 divisional opponents then not so much.

I have called realignment a hostile takeover of an undervalued product. Such events in business always liquidate the lesser assets and maximize the top products by marketing them together. ESPN is selling off rights to games they don't want and both of the cable networks would like to package the best product together. So our conferences get paid to consolidate power. It is what it is.

Given that Texas and Oklahoma make us more money. After the D4 grouping is decided an SEC with Texas and Oklahoma will be in a much better position to lure Virginia and U.N.C. Once all of UVa's and U.N.C.'s old conference mates are safely secured in the new upper division (particularly Wake Forest) then I think movement becomes possible. Who would be their peers then? Notre Dame and Duke, both of which could still wind up in other conferences, or even this one (a big stretch here).
And with all initial payouts to D4 schools starting relatively in the same range and coupled with the elimination of the devaluing of a teams value should they not make the D4, the GOR all of the sudden doesn't have inescapable jaws which are set to take a large economic bite out of the departing. If income is the same and the threat of diminishing value gone then the GOR becomes a relatively cheap exit fee, especially if the same network holds the contracts on the two conferences involved, and it does.

But this is a roller coaster moment. We've been cranked to the top of the highest hill and the big drop is before us. We can either hold up our hands and scream like hell and derive some sense of pleasure, or we can puke all over ourselves. But either way we are not getting off and the cars are not going to go backwards to take us back to the start.