(09-12-2018 06:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there is a new and interesting possibility that could arise. Vanderbilt is not desirous of putting more money into its football facility. As things stand they are the smallest venue in the SEC and they still don't fill it for non conference games and rely heavily on conference games to fill it. What's more Vanderbilt doesn't participate in Women's Softball in the conference either.

Could this lead them to eventually move to where they could be more competitive? Possibly. The Big 10 has expressed interest in the past but they are trying to accomplish the same enhancements that the SEC has been trying to accomplish and right now they need a strong brand in football which Vandy isn't.

But, the ACC which is needing new markets might be the right fit for them.

If something like this came to pass that would open up a 3rd slot for the SEC to use in its Western expansion.

Why not go fro the trifecta of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

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

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

The balance between the two divisions would be very close.

The LHN could become the SEC Western Division Channel and the Charlotte Studio would become the SEC Eastern Division Channel.

A 9 game schedule with 7 division games and 2 crossovers would permit a rotation that would be completed every 4 years. Games like the Egg Bowl could be played in lieu of an OOC P game.

If for some reason something had to be sacrificed for Oklahoma to remain with OSU we could pull in T.C.U. or Texas Tech to accomplish the same ends.

That would be an ideal addition set should Vanderbilt leave or step down.

I would also give looks to Virginia Tech, Florida State, West Virginia and Oklahoma State and Texas Tech as they will probably be in the mix along with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

I still don’t get the TCU love. If you want a bigger presence in DWF, add an Oklahoma school. I would only consider rounding out with TCU if Texas and Oklahoma turned us down and we added an Eastern school or two.

(09-13-2018 02:28 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 06:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there is a new and interesting possibility that could arise. Vanderbilt is not desirous of putting more money into its football facility. As things stand they are the smallest venue in the SEC and they still don't fill it for non conference games and rely heavily on conference games to fill it. What's more Vanderbilt doesn't participate in Women's Softball in the conference either.

Could this lead them to eventually move to where they could be more competitive? Possibly. The Big 10 has expressed interest in the past but they are trying to accomplish the same enhancements that the SEC has been trying to accomplish and right now they need a strong brand in football which Vandy isn't.

But, the ACC which is needing new markets might be the right fit for them.

If something like this came to pass that would open up a 3rd slot for the SEC to use in its Western expansion.

Why not go fro the trifecta of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

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

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

The balance between the two divisions would be very close.

The LHN could become the SEC Western Division Channel and the Charlotte Studio would become the SEC Eastern Division Channel.

A 9 game schedule with 7 division games and 2 crossovers would permit a rotation that would be completed every 4 years. Games like the Egg Bowl could be played in lieu of an OOC P game.

If for some reason something had to be sacrificed for Oklahoma to remain with OSU we could pull in T.C.U. or Texas Tech to accomplish the same ends.

That would be an ideal addition set should Vanderbilt leave or step down.

I would also give looks to Virginia Tech, Florida State, West Virginia and Oklahoma State and Texas Tech as they will probably be in the mix along with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

I still don’t get the TCU love. If you want a bigger presence in DWF, add an Oklahoma school. I would only consider rounding out with TCU if Texas and Oklahoma turned us down and we added an Eastern school or two.

You still have a 15-20 year wait before you could even sniff Virginia Tech or Florida State.

(09-13-2018 05:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 02:28 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 06:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well there is a new and interesting possibility that could arise. Vanderbilt is not desirous of putting more money into its football facility. As things stand they are the smallest venue in the SEC and they still don't fill it for non conference games and rely heavily on conference games to fill it. What's more Vanderbilt doesn't participate in Women's Softball in the conference either.

Could this lead them to eventually move to where they could be more competitive? Possibly. The Big 10 has expressed interest in the past but they are trying to accomplish the same enhancements that the SEC has been trying to accomplish and right now they need a strong brand in football which Vandy isn't.

But, the ACC which is needing new markets might be the right fit for them.

If something like this came to pass that would open up a 3rd slot for the SEC to use in its Western expansion.

Why not go fro the trifecta of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

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

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

The balance between the two divisions would be very close.

The LHN could become the SEC Western Division Channel and the Charlotte Studio would become the SEC Eastern Division Channel.

A 9 game schedule with 7 division games and 2 crossovers would permit a rotation that would be completed every 4 years. Games like the Egg Bowl could be played in lieu of an OOC P game.

If for some reason something had to be sacrificed for Oklahoma to remain with OSU we could pull in T.C.U. or Texas Tech to accomplish the same ends.

That would be an ideal addition set should Vanderbilt leave or step down.

I would also give looks to Virginia Tech, Florida State, West Virginia and Oklahoma State and Texas Tech as they will probably be in the mix along with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

I still don’t get the TCU love. If you want a bigger presence in DWF, add an Oklahoma school. I would only consider rounding out with TCU if Texas and Oklahoma turned us down and we added an Eastern school or two.

You still have a 15-20 year wait before you could even sniff Virginia Tech or Florida State.

I wouldn't want to X. By then they'll be pretty rank with desperation!

Staying on topic with this thread, here's what I think:

I believe if the SEC did choose to expand again, and did so from the Big 12, I believe we should take Kansas, even though they are definitely northern. We would have a monopoly of KC, a blue blood basketball program to pair with UK, an instant rivalry with Mizzou, and more importantly, a cog that would allow both Auburn and Alabama to be shifted to the SEC East Division. Allow me to explain. If Vandy decides to leave the conference (may not happen, but a definite possibility), Auburn could be shifted to the East Division to take Vandy's spot. However, you now have two problems: the Iron Bowl rivalry and who takes Auburn's spot in the West. I'm sure Mizzou could be shifted to the West to replace them, but truthfully, Alabama needs to be moved to the East Division, which would clean up a lot of scheduling problems. Alabama would have Tennessee as a division rival, Auburn as a division rival, Georgia and Auburn would now be division rivals, etc. The Mississippi schools and LSU would lose out though, so I'm not quite sure what could be done to appease them. But anyway, now the question becomes, who takes Alabama's spot in the West? FSU won't work. Clemson doesn't really work either. Kansas would work, and unlike Texas, the Jayhawks are pretty sure they are not going to be winning a whole bunch of conference titles in football and being in the CFB Playoffs would be a once in a lifetime dream for them . Unlike Oklahoma, I don't think the Jayhawks are as tied to the Wildcats as the Sooners are to the Cowboys, so that's another plus for KU. Not exactly a home run for the SEC, but it does fix a lot of issues with the conference!!

(09-16-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Staying on topic with this thread, here's what I think:

I believe if the SEC did choose to expand again, and did so from the Big 12, I believe we should take Kansas, even though they are definitely northern. We would have a monopoly of KC, a blue blood basketball program to pair with UK, an instant rivalry with Mizzou, and more importantly, a cog that would allow both Auburn and Alabama to be shifted to the SEC East Division. Allow me to explain. If Vandy decides to leave the conference (may not happen, but a definite possibility), Auburn could be shifted to the East Division to take Vandy's spot. However, you now have two problems: the Iron Bowl rivalry and who takes Auburn's spot in the West. I'm sure Mizzou could be shifted to the West to replace them, but truthfully, Alabama needs to be moved to the East Division, which would clean up a lot of scheduling problems. Alabama would have Tennessee as a division rival, Auburn as a division rival, Georgia and Auburn would now be division rivals, etc. The Mississippi schools and LSU would lose out though, so I'm not quite sure what could be done to appease them. But anyway, now the question becomes, who takes Alabama's spot in the West? FSU won't work. Clemson doesn't really work either. Kansas would work, and unlike Texas, the Jayhawks are pretty sure they are not going to be winning a whole bunch of conference titles in football and being in the CFB Playoffs would be a once in a lifetime dream for them . Unlike Oklahoma, I don't think the Jayhawks are as tied to the Wildcats as the Sooners are to the Cowboys, so that's another plus for KU. Not exactly a home run for the SEC, but it does fix a lot of issues with the conference!!

Moving to pods for scheduling purposes might alleviate some scheduling issues. Still need a major football brand to pair with Kansas to make a KU addition financially possible

(09-17-2018 08:44 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 01:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Staying on topic with this thread, here's what I think:

I believe if the SEC did choose to expand again, and did so from the Big 12, I believe we should take Kansas, even though they are definitely northern. We would have a monopoly of KC, a blue blood basketball program to pair with UK, an instant rivalry with Mizzou, and more importantly, a cog that would allow both Auburn and Alabama to be shifted to the SEC East Division. Allow me to explain. If Vandy decides to leave the conference (may not happen, but a definite possibility), Auburn could be shifted to the East Division to take Vandy's spot. However, you now have two problems: the Iron Bowl rivalry and who takes Auburn's spot in the West. I'm sure Mizzou could be shifted to the West to replace them, but truthfully, Alabama needs to be moved to the East Division, which would clean up a lot of scheduling problems. Alabama would have Tennessee as a division rival, Auburn as a division rival, Georgia and Auburn would now be division rivals, etc. The Mississippi schools and LSU would lose out though, so I'm not quite sure what could be done to appease them. But anyway, now the question becomes, who takes Alabama's spot in the West? FSU won't work. Clemson doesn't really work either. Kansas would work, and unlike Texas, the Jayhawks are pretty sure they are not going to be winning a whole bunch of conference titles in football and being in the CFB Playoffs would be a once in a lifetime dream for them . Unlike Oklahoma, I don't think the Jayhawks are as tied to the Wildcats as the Sooners are to the Cowboys, so that's another plus for KU. Not exactly a home run for the SEC, but it does fix a lot of issues with the conference!!

Moving to pods for scheduling purposes might alleviate some scheduling issues. Still need a major football brand to pair with Kansas to make a KU addition financially possible

Yes. We don't do anything without landing either Texas or Oklahoma if expansion comes out of the Big 12.

Let's make this visible:

Alabama: 4.875 million
Arkansas: 3.004 million
Florida: 20.980 million
Georgia: 10.430 million
Kentucky: 4.454 million
Louisiana: 4.684 million
Mississippi: 2.984 million
Missouri: 6.114 million
South Carolina: 5.024 million
Tennessee: 6.716 million
Texas: 28.300 million

States of Potential Members:
Texas: 28.300 million (school: Texas or Texas Tech)
Oklahoma: 3.931 million (school: Oklahoma or Oklahoma State)
Kansas: 2.913 million (school: Kansas or Kansas State)
North Carolina: 10.270 million (school: North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke)
Virginia: 8.470 million (school: Virginia or Virginia Tech)
Florida: 20.980 million (school: Florida State or Miami)
South Carolina: 5.024 million (school: Clemson)

*Note all population stats are as of 2017

Conventional Wisdom is that under the new pay model market additions are only good for adding to the value of the conference network.

Content additions however illustrate how multiple schools from one state help the conference to add to the total potential viewers for both schools by double dipping the large audience states. This adds to especially to tier 2 values. If one or both of those schools is also a well recognized brand then they multiply the value of our T1 content by being selected more often for prime time telecasts.

So if you want to maximize value you look for well known brand schools, preferably from large states, and if they reside in a state we currently don't have represented then they also add to our T3 value.

Texas, Florida State/or Miami meet fulfill T1 and T2 requirements.
Oklahoma fulfills T1 and T3 requirements.
North Carolina or N.C. State fulfills T2 and T3.
Virginia fulfills T2 and T3.
Virginia Tech fulfills T1, T2, and T3.

But it is cold hard ratings and revenue you are after then Texas gives you the eyes of the 28.3 million and if not playing at the same time as A&M we double it. Oklahoma gives you the eyes of 13 million between Oklahoma and DFW.
Florida State gives you the eyes of 20.98 million if not playing at the same time as Florida.

IMO the ideal additions for the SEC are what we all already knew: Texas and Oklahoma

#2 pairing: Texas / or Oklahoma and Florida State.

IMO all other options are fillers.

(10-02-2018 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's make this visible:

Alabama: 4.875 million
Arkansas: 3.004 million
Florida: 20.980 million
Georgia: 10.430 million
Kentucky: 4.454 million
Louisiana: 4.684 million
Mississippi: 2.984 million
Missouri: 6.114 million
South Carolina: 5.024 million
Tennessee: 6.716 million
Texas: 28.300 million

States of Potential Members:
Texas: 28.300 million (school: Texas or Texas Tech)
Oklahoma: 3.931 million (school: Oklahoma or Oklahoma State)
Kansas: 2.913 million (school: Kansas or Kansas State)
North Carolina: 10.270 million (school: North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke)
Virginia: 8.470 million (school: Virginia or Virginia Tech)
Florida: 20.980 million (school: Florida State or Miami)
South Carolina: 5.024 million (school: Clemson)

*Note all population stats are as of 2017

Conventional Wisdom is that under the new pay model market additions are only good for adding to the value of the conference network.

Content additions however illustrate how multiple schools from one state help the conference to add to the total potential viewers for both schools by double dipping the large audience states. This adds to especially to tier 2 values. If one or both of those schools is also a well recognized brand then they multiply the value of our T1 content by being selected more often for prime time telecasts.

So if you want to maximize value you look for well known brand schools, preferably from large states, and if they reside in a state we currently don't have represented then they also add to our T3 value.

Texas, Florida State/or Miami meet fulfill T1 and T2 requirements.
Oklahoma fulfills T1 and T3 requirements.
North Carolina or N.C. State fulfills T2 and T3.
Virginia fulfills T2 and T3.
Virginia Tech fulfills T1, T2, and T3.

But it is cold hard ratings and revenue you are after then Texas gives you the eyes of the 28.3 million and if not playing at the same time as A&M we double it. Oklahoma gives you the eyes of 13 million between Oklahoma and DFW.
Florida State gives you the eyes of 20.98 million if not playing at the same time as Florida.

IMO the ideal additions for the SEC are what we all already knew: Texas and Oklahoma

#2 pairing: Texas / or Oklahoma and Florida State.

IMO all other options are fillers.

To land Texas, pretend not to be interested in them. They have given the SEC in the past, plenty of reasons to dislike them. The forbidden fruit becomes the most desirable.

I wouldn't take any of them. I would take Clemson and FSU.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6820 using Tapatalk

(10-14-2018 02:34 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  I wouldn't take any of them. I would take Clemson and FSU.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6820 using Tapatalk

Would have loved to have had F.S.U. in '92. We were shopping Clemson back then too. In 2010 the market model was not conducive to their consideration. I think they would still make fabulous additions and would give the SEC the kind of regional dominance that would payoff, but their GOR lasts until 2037 so I just don't see it happening next time around.

So by 2023-4 if there is movement, I look for the interest to be in Texas and Oklahoma and if just one the discussion will come about over who travels with them.

If you’re looking to poach other P5 schools, I doubt you’d get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State or Texas without Texas Tech (although you’d have a better shot at that). I think Texas is too arrogant to give up the LHN.

WVU would be geographically a nightmare. They align more with the B1G. They are closer to Philly than their nearest SEC foe (UK at 325 miles).

If you want a G5, take UCF and Houston.

(10-17-2018 08:18 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  If you’re looking to poach other P5 schools, I doubt you’d get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State or Texas without Texas Tech (although you’d have a better shot at that). I think Texas is too arrogant to give up the LHN.

WVU would be geographically a nightmare. They align more with the B1G. They are closer to Philly than their nearest SEC foe (UK at 325 miles).

If you want a G5, take UCF and Houston.

We've passed twice on West Virginia because they were an outlier and we aren't interested in any G5's. For a school to be taken they would have to bring a NET value in earning potential to the SEC of at least 62 million dollars per year with them. Only two schools meet that metric, Texas and Oklahoma. Both however would add enough to also cover Tech or OSU.

So the preference would be for them by themselves, but a pairing might be possible. But then in this 88 page thread that topic has been well covered many times. And the other pinned threads at the top of the SEC board have statistical information in them that bear this out.

(10-17-2018 08:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 08:18 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  If you’re looking to poach other P5 schools, I doubt you’d get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State or Texas without Texas Tech (although you’d have a better shot at that). I think Texas is too arrogant to give up the LHN.

WVU would be geographically a nightmare. They align more with the B1G. They are closer to Philly than their nearest SEC foe (UK at 325 miles).

If you want a G5, take UCF and Houston.

We've passed twice on West Virginia because they were an outlier and we aren't interested in any G5's. For a school to be taken they would have to bring a NET value in earning potential to the SEC of at least 62 million dollars per year with them. Only two schools meet that metric, Texas and Oklahoma. Both however would add enough to also cover Tech or OSU.

So the preference would be for them by themselves, but a pairing might be possible. But then in this 88 page thread that topic has been well covered many times. And the other pinned threads at the top of the SEC board have statistical information in them that bear this out.

JRsec,

Maybe I can twist the conversation slightly. Based on all the statistical information we have right now Texas and OK are it and they are enough to consider Tech or OSU. But looking forward, do any other schools have a shot at that 62 million a year mark? What would be appropriate criteria for evaluating that? I.e, could WVU become a school like Texas/OK or is too late to get to that level?

I'm thinking it would take (for any school and not just WVU):
1) Winning - at football, at basketball, at baseball, alot and over an extended period of time
2) Money from boosters, etc. investing into the stadium, the programs, the coaches, etc.
3) Research Money (I know education is low on the totem pole but I think it is a factor.
4) A strong and dedicated alumni base that moves into the next generation well.

So, say a school like Clemson or FSU could get there, and a school even like USF/UCF could get there over time with their massive alumni base, but some schools will be limited.

I might even make two categories: Close-ish schools, and schools that have the opportunity.

For close-ish schools I'm thinking of a school like say UNC, who has the money and the fan base, but really just needs a good coach and some winning seasons. That is pure conjecture, but I do think a UNC with an above average football team would be worth alot more to the SEC/Big 10. UCF/USF would fall into the "have the opportunity" if they do they things right group.

I know I'm rambling so I guess I'll boil it down to 4 questions:
1) Is it possible that some schools can reach Texas/OK levels or is the other direction ala Nebraska/TN more likely for most schools as a "super group" gets formed of the Texas and Alabamas?

2) If it is possible, what are the criteria for identifying the schools that legitimately have the chance?

3) Of the schools that legitimately have the chance, which ones are close and which ones are far?

4) The SEC does not have to expand, period. But if we were to expand based on potential, what schools would be the best fits? I.e, who would then be included in a group worth considering outside of Texas/OK?

(10-18-2018 03:23 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 08:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 08:18 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  If you’re looking to poach other P5 schools, I doubt you’d get Oklahoma without Oklahoma State or Texas without Texas Tech (although you’d have a better shot at that). I think Texas is too arrogant to give up the LHN.

WVU would be geographically a nightmare. They align more with the B1G. They are closer to Philly than their nearest SEC foe (UK at 325 miles).

If you want a G5, take UCF and Houston.

We've passed twice on West Virginia because they were an outlier and we aren't interested in any G5's. For a school to be taken they would have to bring a NET value in earning potential to the SEC of at least 62 million dollars per year with them. Only two schools meet that metric, Texas and Oklahoma. Both however would add enough to also cover Tech or OSU.

So the preference would be for them by themselves, but a pairing might be possible. But then in this 88 page thread that topic has been well covered many times. And the other pinned threads at the top of the SEC board have statistical information in them that bear this out.

JRsec,

Maybe I can twist the conversation slightly. Based on all the statistical information we have right now Texas and OK are it and they are enough to consider Tech or OSU. But looking forward, do any other schools have a shot at that 62 million a year mark? What would be appropriate criteria for evaluating that? I.e, could WVU become a school like Texas/OK or is too late to get to that level?

I'm thinking it would take (for any school and not just WVU):
1) Winning - at football, at basketball, at baseball, alot and over an extended period of time
2) Money from boosters, etc. investing into the stadium, the programs, the coaches, etc.
3) Research Money (I know education is low on the totem pole but I think it is a factor.
4) A strong and dedicated alumni base that moves into the next generation well.

So, say a school like Clemson or FSU could get there, and a school even like USF/UCF could get there over time with their massive alumni base, but some schools will be limited.

I might even make two categories: Close-ish schools, and schools that have the opportunity.

For close-ish schools I'm thinking of a school like say UNC, who has the money and the fan base, but really just needs a good coach and some winning seasons. That is pure conjecture, but I do think a UNC with an above average football team would be worth alot more to the SEC/Big 10. UCF/USF would fall into the "have the opportunity" if they do they things right group.

I know I'm rambling so I guess I'll boil it down to 4 questions:
1) Is it possible that some schools can reach Texas/OK levels or is the other direction ala Nebraska/TN more likely for most schools as a "super group" gets formed of the Texas and Alabamas?

2) If it is possible, what are the criteria for identifying the schools that legitimately have the chance?

3) Of the schools that legitimately have the chance, which ones are close and which ones are far?

4) The SEC does not have to expand, period. But if we were to expand based on potential, what schools would be the best fits? I.e, who would then be included in a group worth considering outside of Texas/OK?

Well keep in mind that the as the pay model changes branding and national draw will play a more important role than just that of markets.

Under the market system Clemson and F.S.U. were being downplayed because the SEC was looking at adding to its cable subscription in state fee base. So under that model North Carolina/N.C. State, Virginia/Va Tech held significant interest due to their population bases.

I think Clemson and Florida State could both add to the SEC's bottom line in a pay model that is more weighted to the actual number of viewers than to the populace of the individual states. Clemson is a strong regional draw. Florida State is a national brand.

I was in part excluding them above as I believe I mentioned because neither of them would be likely to make a decision to leave the ACC until the GOR was nearer to expiration (2037). So for now should movement happen in 2023-4 neither of those schools would be very likely to even be considered.

So if you are looking at the kinds of schools whose presence would add to the SEC under the new direction of financial reward then the list of prospects could be expanded to include Florida State and Clemson as it was in '92 before the subscription fee pay model took over.

As to your definitions of who could be close-ish I would definitely think that North Carolina and perhaps one of the Virginia schools could fit that bill. All of them have academic status that would be deemed to add in its own way, but then so does Texas. Oklahoma academically is at the SEC mean and therefore they wouldn't detract from our current standing.

It seldom gets mentioned because it is so out of character, but Ohio State, sports culture wise, would likely make more in the SEC. But of course their historic ties and academic ties would prohibit that. I mention this to say of course there are other schools out there besides Texas and Oklahoma, it's just that none of them are likely to move, and even if Clemson and F.S.U. wanted to it'll likely be after my lifetime before they even have another chance to do so. In your lifetime it would be much more likely that they could.

I don't think we want to grow beyond our region, but we are intentionally broadening our concept of region.

Under that pretext a pairing such as Texas and Kansas or Oklahoma and Kansas might not be out of the question.

When you think of what it means to be a content driven market then you realize the value of the schools whose brand vs the brands of our schools would multiply the value of our TV contract with more must see games.

If the SEC only grew to 18 and could add just the schools that would make us the most money then I think that foursome would be: Texas, Florida State, Oklahoma, and Clemson.

But that's an ideal situation. In all likelihood state politics, concerns over traditional rivals, etc. will all chip away at that ideal. Of all of the schools that we could add simply and preserve rivalries Clemson and Florida State would be the easiest to assimilate. Texas might simply settle for being with A&M again, but would the Texas legislature want Tech left out of that mix? Oklahoma would probably come to the SEC without hesitation if we took Oklahoma State too. But is that what's best for our conference?

I think the easy play for the SEC would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That satisfies a lot of issues for both Texas and Oklahoma. Maybe that's the move to make until 2037 when a push for Florida State and Clemson, or Florida State and a North Carolina school could be made.

So here's my attempt to answer your question with one slight change. I will include in close-ish schools that might also be paired with one of the no brainer targets.

No Brainers:
Florida State, Oklahoma, Texas

Almost a No Brainer:
Clemson and North Carolina

Close-ish (on their own):
Virginia Tech, maybe Kansas

Close-ish (as a tag-along):
Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, N.C. State, maybe Kansas, maybe Duke due to academics and hoops.

Does that help?

West Virginia has good athletic programs. Geographically they are a tough destination for our fans. Their stadium is smallish for the SEC, but their fans do travel well. Academically they would rank behind our lowest school at this time. They have lowest economic impact valuation (WSJ estimates on how much revenue retailers generate off of their product) of any of the Big 12, or SEC schools. So I just don't think there is a legitimate chance here.

A note of consequence for readers of this thread.

Alabama, Auburn, and Mississippi State are now all R1 Carnegie schools making every member of the SEC R1 Carnegie schools.

Also being added to the ranks of R1 Carnegie schools is Oklahoma State. That means the academic objections to the Cowboys would now be nullified. Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are all R1 and Texas is also AAU.

I think this opens up options a wee bit with regard to which schools from the Big 12 might ever be considered for membership. Only T.C.U. and Baylor from the Big 12 now fail to be R1 schools, while the only other P5 conference with a member not in that designation is the ACC where Wake Forest is not R1.

(01-02-2019 12:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  A note of consequence for readers of this thread.

Alabama, Auburn, and Mississippi State are now all R1 Carnegie schools making every member of the SEC R1 Carnegie schools.

Also being added to the ranks of R1 Carnegie schools is Oklahoma State. That means the academic objections to the Cowboys would now be nullified. Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are all R1 and Texas is also AAU.

I think this opens up options a wee bit with regard to which schools from the Big 12 might ever be considered for membership. Only T.C.U. and Baylor from the Big 12 now fail to be R1 schools, while the only other P5 conference with a member not in that designation is the ACC where Wake Forest is not R1.

I like those 4 although I don't particularly like the structure of 18.

If we threw in Kansas and Iowa State then I think we could create a model that benefits us on multiple levels.

Midwest: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State
Southwest: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas, LSU
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky

- You could play 4 division games.
- One permanent rival from each of the other divisions.
- One rotating opponent from each of the other divisions.

That's 10 games so you've got 5 home and 5 away every year as far as conference games. From there, you could do conference semis or a system of tiebreakers that determine the top 2 for Atlanta.

(01-02-2019 04:02 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 12:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  A note of consequence for readers of this thread.

Alabama, Auburn, and Mississippi State are now all R1 Carnegie schools making every member of the SEC R1 Carnegie schools.

Also being added to the ranks of R1 Carnegie schools is Oklahoma State. That means the academic objections to the Cowboys would now be nullified. Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State are all R1 and Texas is also AAU.

I think this opens up options a wee bit with regard to which schools from the Big 12 might ever be considered for membership. Only T.C.U. and Baylor from the Big 12 now fail to be R1 schools, while the only other P5 conference with a member not in that designation is the ACC where Wake Forest is not R1.

I like those 4 although I don't particularly like the structure of 18.

If we threw in Kansas and Iowa State then I think we could create a model that benefits us on multiple levels.

Midwest: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa State
Southwest: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Arkansas, LSU
South: Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky

- You could play 4 division games.
- One permanent rival from each of the other divisions.
- One rotating opponent from each of the other divisions.

That's 10 games so you've got 5 home and 5 away every year as far as conference games. From there, you could do conference semis or a system of tiebreakers that determine the top 2 for Atlanta.

Yes, there's a lot to be gained from that kind of setup and several options of scheduling that work. Call the 4 divisions half divisions and rotate them and you play everyone every three years and with 1 permanent rival you could still have it all with a 9 game conference schedule. With the groupings you suggest that should work just fine.

If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?

My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.

If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.

If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.

If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.

(01-26-2019 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?

My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.

If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.

If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.

If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.

While the SEC is 1st in average revenue, the Big 12 is 3rd in average revenue. We won't have access to the 2nd best product...the Big Ten, but we will have an ability to absorb valuable parts of the 3rd best product.

I think we have to look at this in terms of consolidating revenue earning potential. The Big 12 schools do, after all, dominate their region.

From the other thread on revenue:

Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447

Total: $1,128,257,788

Average Per Team: $112,825,779

-------------------------------------------

Now, Texas and Oklahoma are obviously the big dogs, but let's look at the averages when you remove UT and OU:

$94,773,582.5

So, nearly a $20M per team difference when you add in UT and OU.

The most interesting thing about these numbers to me is that's roughly the ACC average when you include all of their top schools. Remove a couple of top revenue producers from the ACC and things look fairly dire.

ACC averages:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224

Total: $1,327,372,397

Average Per Team: $94,812,314

The only school in the ACC that is currently generating more than our average is Florida State, but we won't be cracking the ACC for a while assuming it ever happens.

It's fair to consider that the ACC will get a boost from the ACC Network, but no such boost will be coming for Big 12 schools because their content will never be bundled. So their 3rd tier contracts are more varied than what the ACC will be bringing forth.

BUT...any 3rd tier deal for the SEC would be more valuable if it contained some Big 12 schools because the inventory would be larger if for no other reason.

Let me suggest that part of the reason the Big 12 is on the chopping block is because their pieces are the more valuable ones. The other factors have been discussed, and they are certainly relevant, but considering the ACC is at the bottom of revenue then I think it's fair to say that very little of the ACC product would actually add value to the SEC or anyone else.

When a company wants to acquire new properties in the same industry, do they go all out for the ones that are weaker or do they try to "merge" with the ones that will combine for greater marketshare?

There are a lot of reasons the Big 12 is not doing well, but I think the networks have not done much to solidify the foundation of the league because it would be easier to absorb its value. The Big 12's unique situation with regard to its small markets doesn't really detract from its quality of content. What the Big 12 needs is access to better audiences rather than a wholesale dismembering.

The ACC would be harder to digest and so perhaps that is one of the key reasons ESPN has spent more time trying to strengthen it when it would have been easier to tear it apart.

Personally, I think we should go for about 6 schools from the Big 12. The Texahoma 4 is probably the best starting point. I think Kansas should be in there. Not sure who the 6th should be other than West Virginia is probably needed by the ACC.

The 1st tier is stronger with Texas and Oklahoma aboard, that is obvious. I think our 2nd and 3rd tier is stronger with a few others aboard.

---------------------------------------------

For reference, the numbers of the SEC:

SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651

Total: $1,926,694,856

Average Per Team: $137,621,061

(01-27-2019 10:53 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2019 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If realignment happens again how should the SEC, not ESPN, approach it?

My suggestion is that we make a very solid offer to Oklahoma and wait for a response. If they take it, it pressures Texas to seriously consider it. If they take it were done.

If Oklahoma insists on Oklahoma State we call Texas and tell them that we can take them and Texas Tech. if they accept we are done.

If Texas is wishy washy or says no. We call Oklahoma back and take the pair. The pressure is still on Texas. Everyone their fans love to play will now be in the SEC. Only this time we tell Texas if they are now interested that we can make room for them, but that Kansas will have to be the travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18. If they say no we are done.

If Texas and Texas Tech say yes and Oklahoma calls and wants to reconsider then we tell them that we can make room for them but that Kansas will have to be their travel companion. If they say yes we move to 18 and we are done. If they say no we stay at 16 with Texas and Texas Tech.

While the SEC is 1st in average revenue, the Big 12 is 3rd in average revenue. We won't have access to the 2nd best product...the Big Ten, but we will have an ability to absorb valuable parts of the 3rd best product.

I think we have to look at this in terms of consolidating revenue earning potential. The Big 12 schools do, after all, dominate their region.

From the other thread on revenue:

Big 12:

1. Texas: $214,830,647
7. Oklahoma: $155,238,481
30. West Virginia: $110,565,870
32. Texas Christian: $105,055,587
37. Baylor: $98,125,426
42. Kansas: $95,251,461
46. Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
51. Texas Tech: $88,804,476
53. Kansas State: $86,081,528
60. Iowa State: $82,659,447

Total: $1,128,257,788

Average Per Team: $112,825,779

-------------------------------------------

Now, Texas and Oklahoma are obviously the big dogs, but let's look at the averages when you remove UT and OU:

$94,773,582.5

So, nearly a $20M per team difference when you add in UT and OU.

The most interesting thing about these numbers to me is that's roughly the ACC average when you include all of their top schools. Remove a couple of top revenue producers from the ACC and things look fairly dire.

ACC averages:

13. Florida State: $144,514,413
24. Louisville: $120,445,303
29. Clemson: $112,600,964
35. Duke: $100,480,206
41. North Carolina: $96,540,823
45. Virginia: $92,865,175
47. Syracuse: $91,445,865
50. Miami: $89,135,175
52. Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
55. Pittsburgh: $84,831,036
57. N.C. State: $83,741,572
61. Georgia Tech: $81,762,024
64. Boston College: $74,587,091
65. Wake Forest: $66,995,224

Total: $1,327,372,397

Average Per Team: $94,812,314

The only school in the ACC that is currently generating more than our average is Florida State, but we won't be cracking the ACC for a while assuming it ever happens.

It's fair to consider that the ACC will get a boost from the ACC Network, but no such boost will be coming for Big 12 schools because their content will never be bundled. So their 3rd tier contracts are more varied than what the ACC will be bringing forth.

BUT...any 3rd tier deal for the SEC would be more valuable if it contained some Big 12 schools because the inventory would be larger if for no other reason.

Let me suggest that part of the reason the Big 12 is on the chopping block is because their pieces are the more valuable ones. The other factors have been discussed, and they are certainly relevant, but considering the ACC is at the bottom of revenue then I think it's fair to say that very little of the ACC product would actually add value to the SEC or anyone else.

When a company wants to acquire new properties in the same industry, do they go all out for the ones that are weaker or do they try to "merge" with the ones that will combine for greater marketshare?

There are a lot of reasons the Big 12 is not doing well, but I think the networks have not done much to solidify the foundation of the league because it would be easier to absorb its value. The Big 12's unique situation with regard to its small markets doesn't really detract from its quality of content. What the Big 12 needs is access to better audiences rather than a wholesale dismembering.

The ACC would be harder to digest and so perhaps that is one of the key reasons ESPN has spent more time trying to strengthen it when it would have been easier to tear it apart.

Personally, I think we should go for about 6 schools from the Big 12. The Texahoma 4 is probably the best starting point. I think Kansas should be in there. Not sure who the 6th should be other than West Virginia is probably needed by the ACC.

The 1st tier is stronger with Texas and Oklahoma aboard, that is obvious. I think our 2nd and 3rd tier is stronger with a few others aboard.

---------------------------------------------

For reference, the numbers of the SEC:

SEC:

2. Texas A&M: $211,960,034
5. Alabama: $174,307,419
6. Georgia: $157,852,479
8. Florida: $149,165,475
9. Louisiana State: $147,744,233
10. Auburn: $147,511,034
11. Tennessee: $145,653,191
16. South Carolina: $136,032,845
18. Kentucky: $130,706,744
20. Arkansas: $129,680,808
26. Mississippi: $117,834,511
36. Mississippi State: $100,062,237
38. Missouri: $97,848,195
62. Vanderbilt: $80,335,651

Total: $1,926,694,856

Average Per Team: $137,621,061

Okay, let's say the first 5 are Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Kansas. Who's next? I see no need of Baylor or T.C.U. if we have the 3 state Texas schools.

I would favor Iowa State. Kansas might want KState salvaged and that could be an impasse. But since I don't think the Big 10 would take Kansas by their lonesome, I think Kansas joins with their buds.

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri could form a division.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech could form the other.

Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee and Vanderbilt the 3rd.

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and South Carolina the 4th.


But the optimum solution would be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas.