(02-13-2021 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 03:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 05:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 11:24 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR—where would you put the valuation of the SEC at per year at 24 members—

Oklahoma
Texas
Florida St
Clemson
Pick any 6 Big 12 or ACC schools you want

I think 24 would be a sweet spot where the conference could maximize both the individual value of its biggest brands and use its enormous market share to demand premium rates for their content.

What are your thoughts as the ideal size for revenue?

At 24 the SEC starts to lose per school revenue. Twenty could be justified. Texas and Oklahoma add 1.95 billion to the SEC's total. That is still the optimal move. But the SEC could justify for Winter sports sake the additions of Kansas and North Carolina to go with Kentucky to boost the SEC's basketball value. Add Florida State to control he top ad rates in Florida and Clemson for a content multiplier and maybe you could justify 20.

But in reality the SEC's payouts would never be higher that they would be if they just went to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma.

I like 20. Shoot for Clemson, Florida St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas Tech. Actually 21 is not terrible - add Kansas.

21
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

(02-13-2021 03:29 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  This is what bothers me. Conferences may expand with schools thinking they are adding great new markets. It does not always synthesize very well. Even when Penn State moved to the BIG, there were plenty of disgruntled fans when it first happened. Much of the fan base travels, and heading deep into the midwest often wasn't so favorable.

West Virginia in the Big 12 is the blatant example of awkward placement. They would have fit well into the ACC, and provided the ACC fb (and bb really) more quality in the northern tier of the conference.

I am more optimistic about Mizzou. They are not an extreme outlier. They are cultivating good SEC rivalries. Note, being placed in the SEC-east, trips to/from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and even Tennessee, cannot be described as close. On most other measures, it is a positive association.

1. Adding new markets opened a clause in the SEC TV contracts to reevaluate its value for the new members and add more cable boxes to the SeEC Network to aid its startup and success.

2. Mizzou playing in the East in football helped re-establish new recruiting grounds and connections. Winning the East twice proved Mizzou could succeed, not sure they would finish that high in the west.

3. We have a window for another round of expansion coming up, but is there a need or desire for teams to switch conferences. More importantly, is there a way to monetize it so all members come out ahead?

1. Missouri won the East twice because Pinkel was a better coach than those in the East at that time. Their fans want closer games, and preferably more meaningful ones to them.

2. Nobody really gets added for footprint anymore, but they will be added for national draw.

3. The reason things "could" change by 2024 is that the GOR's in the Big 12 and PAC expire meaning you don't have to make it profitable for everyone affected by a move. I doubt that corporate entities will let this opportunity pass without trying to utilize it to their advantage. Texas and Oklahoma also realize this is their only chance to make moves without having to insure the other 8.

Personally I think the SEC should consider moving to 18 and split the divisions in a truer East / West alignment. I say expand by 4 because you can accommodate Texas who already has 2 chief rivals and likely third in the SEC (A&M, Arky, & LSU) and add Kansas in the process with whichever other school is needed to make the deal whether that is Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Baylor, or T.C.U.. At that point it doesn't really matter. UT and OU give you 57% of the value of the Big 12. Add Kansas and it is 62%. And any of the other 3 and you get close to 70% of the value of the Big 12 for the cost of 4 schools ( and actually get 70% with OSU as the choice). Even ESPN will be interested in that.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

Only Mississippi/Mississippi State would need a protection and the easiest way to do that is for them to make each other an OOC P game and not count the win or loss against the conference record.

To me, that could be a major hindrance in expansion as scheduling in football will start getting more difficult unless the conference rules or structure changes.

I find it fascinating that this round of potential realignment has an ACC willing to put all options on the table to catch up to th dc SEC and B1G. The Pac is ditching their commissioner and reevaluating their rights and networks structure to close the financial gap. The Big 12 schools will have some options as they’ll be highly coveted. Now my only question is could any ACC school leave the conference before the early 2030’s and retain their tv rights or are they definitely trapped in the ACC GOR.