Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1921
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(01-26-2021 10:59 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another off-the-wall scenario but I think this one has a greater chance of happening than thought:

1) SEC gets the three best programs of the Big 12 and a +1. For argument's sake let's say that +1 is Texas Tech

2) Big Ten responds by selling its share of the Big Ten Network to Comcast. Comcast buys out Fox Corporation's share of BTN. Comcast would also buy out the PAC Networks

3) Comcast buys out the remainder of Notre Dame's contract with the ACC and starts readying its shift to the Big Ten. Then one of two things happen: either they stay at 15 until another program comes free or they take in another program in the footprint. Pitt or Iowa State would be among the possibilities

4) PAC/Big Ten renew scheduling alliance, now with Notre Dame part of the group. Peacock and NBC will be used to air games. USC and Stanford vs Notre Dame would be exclusive Comcast properties

Splitting up the SEC would be easy - just put the former Big 8/Big 12/SWC programs in one division except A&M

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


The PAC would stay the same but the scenarios on the Big Ten side would dramatically change. If they don't go beyond 15 then they could break it down like this:

Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Northwestern, Michigan, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Purdue
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

What happens if they move to 16? Well, a couple of scenarios could happen:

- shifting Pitt to Penn State's division make sense. If you can put ND with Pitt and Penn State it would be better. Then you can keep the Ohio State/Michigan/Michigan State group united

- if Pitt can't work out economically then Iowa State is the other possible choice but that presents some complications. Cincinnati won't work due to Ohio State's power in the conference

- Syracuse might get a look as well and would complement the markets in the Northeast, in case markets would still matter more. However, Pitt has the academic chops Syracuse lacks

So the ideal pick up is Notre Dame and Pitt.

Notre Dame, Pitt, Penn State, Maryland
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota

If Notre Dame and Iowa State:

Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State
Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Notre Dame, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

What you suggest is more possible than many will initially believe. However, the corporate structure involved and the cultural underpinnings would fit reality.

I've often wondered if the PAC 12 would not have been better off to have assumed the old Big 8. The academics were solid enough.

PAC:
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah
Arizona, California, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington.

SEC:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Clemson, Duke, Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, N.C. State

Big 10:
Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Now there is a much more reasonable 56 schools for an upper tier. The geography is better, the rivalries more protected, and the revenue expectations of the additions are on spot for the SEC, Big 10, better by far for the PAC, and as expected for the ACC.

Arizona State, Brigham Young, Boise State, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Washington State
Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, West Virginia

This could be quite a rewarding conference for ESPN with better content by far than the current AAC.
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2021 02:19 PM by JRsec.)
01-26-2021 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1922
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(01-26-2021 10:59 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another off-the-wall scenario but I think this one has a greater chance of happening than thought:

1) SEC gets the three best programs of the Big 12 and a +1. For argument's sake let's say that +1 is Texas Tech

2) Big Ten responds by selling its share of the Big Ten Network to Comcast. Comcast buys out Fox Corporation's share of BTN. Comcast would also buy out the PAC Networks

3) Comcast buys out the remainder of Notre Dame's contract with the ACC and starts readying its shift to the Big Ten. Then one of two things happen: either they stay at 15 until another program comes free or they take in another program in the footprint. Pitt or Iowa State would be among the possibilities

4) PAC/Big Ten renew scheduling alliance, now with Notre Dame part of the group. Peacock and NBC will be used to air games. USC and Stanford vs Notre Dame would be exclusive Comcast properties

Splitting up the SEC would be easy - just put the former Big 8/Big 12/SWC programs in one division except A&M

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


The PAC would stay the same but the scenarios on the Big Ten side would dramatically change. If they don't go beyond 15 then they could break it down like this:

Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Northwestern, Michigan, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Purdue
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

What happens if they move to 16? Well, a couple of scenarios could happen:

- shifting Pitt to Penn State's division make sense. If you can put ND with Pitt and Penn State it would be better. Then you can keep the Ohio State/Michigan/Michigan State group united

- if Pitt can't work out economically then Iowa State is the other possible choice but that presents some complications. Cincinnati won't work due to Ohio State's power in the conference

- Syracuse might get a look as well and would complement the markets in the Northeast, in case markets would still matter more. However, Pitt has the academic chops Syracuse lacks

So the ideal pick up is Notre Dame and Pitt.

Notre Dame, Pitt, Penn State, Maryland
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota

If Notre Dame and Iowa State:

Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State
Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Notre Dame, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

That's an interesting thought process.

I've started to wonder too if Comcast might actually double down on sports given all their actions recently.

What if it went something like this?

Comcast buys out the Big Ten Network as you suggest and converts it to a property on Peacock. They just did it with the WWE so it could work structurally.

Now the issue is FOX...are they getting out of college sports? Would they part ways with their share of the BTN? That would likely mean they would be fine not bidding on the next round of Big Ten rights. That remains to be seen, but it's certainly plausible.

I don't see Notre Dame involved in this deal because ESPN would have to let the rights go...I don't see it. The ACC will continue to stumble on, but ND means a lot to their viability which in turn buoys ESPN's investment.

Here is where I think things will get interesting and it all revolves around the next installment of NFL rights. Take a look at this article from a few weeks ago...Amazon eyeing NFL package

A more detailed analysis of why the new NFL contract could change the game for everyone else.

Here's the point, if the NFL really shakes things up by taking serious content to a streamer then the game is going to change for everyone. Perhaps the primary reason for that is because whichever streaming service lands those rights will have a much bigger audience in short order. I think that's especially true for whoever lands the Sunday Ticket package.

I don't really agree with the people who say there won't be enough money left over after the NFL gets done, and that perhaps that might be a reason the SEC finished their contract early. Now, I'm sure the timing was relevant, but I don't think it's a financial issue so much as an issue of stability.

If the NFL, by virtue of its weight, switches viewers over to certain streaming platforms then the game will be different for everyone on down the food chain.

It looks like FOX, CBS, NBC, and ABC/ESPN will retain their current packages except that the Thursday Night Football might just go to Amazon. That's important as well, but I think the Sunday Ticket will have a bigger impact. What has actually limited Sunday Ticket in the past is it being tied to a cable/satellite service. It's a big switch technologically and perhaps financially to invest in Sunday Ticket from the perspective of a consumer. Make it easier for the consumer to get Sunday Ticket by putting everything online for a reasonable price and it changes things.

It doesn't look like Comcast is in on that, but what it does mean is they will have to ramp up the value of their streaming product to compensate for all the flexing elsewhere. Right now, FOX has no real streaming product. They are out of the game and don't seem to have any plan to get into it.

They will likely shoot for a large NFL package, but they might also bid for NHL games as well. The problem with FOX though is they have no current means of creating a new audience. No streaming product and the RSNs are gone. It does make sense that they would shed other properties that don't necessarily jive with their current goals. The Big Ten Network and subsequent league rights could be next on the docket to leave.

But here's where things might get interesting. The NFL deal is up at the end of the 2021 season. If one or more streaming platforms enter the business for NFL games then they might just get in on other college properties.

You want to know my theory on why the SEC got locked up when they did? ESPN didn't likely fear the loss of the SEC's T1, but they might fear the loss of other products as the market shifts and changes. They wanted to lock up the SEC now for 2 reasons...1) lock down tentpole content that also gave them the ability to increase the value of their streaming platform as SEC games will be on ESPN+ eventually and 2) hedge their bets against losing content from some of their other leagues such as the Big Ten, PAC 12, or Big 12.

The aforementioned 3 leagues will have opportunity to put significant rights with other companies because the advent of new streaming audiences will make it viable.

Nonetheless, ESPN's current investments are extremely important. I think they will either go hard after the entirety of the Big 12 or work to house the key Big 12 properties in existing leagues. The importance of the LHN strikes again.

When it comes to the PAC 12 or Big Ten, I think the odds of them moving more content away from ESPN are higher although not necessarily a slam dunk. I think a lot could depend on where these NFL rights land in short order because it will change the market.
01-26-2021 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #1923
RE: If
(01-26-2021 05:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 10:59 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another off-the-wall scenario but I think this one has a greater chance of happening than thought:

1) SEC gets the three best programs of the Big 12 and a +1. For argument's sake let's say that +1 is Texas Tech

2) Big Ten responds by selling its share of the Big Ten Network to Comcast. Comcast buys out Fox Corporation's share of BTN. Comcast would also buy out the PAC Networks

3) Comcast buys out the remainder of Notre Dame's contract with the ACC and starts readying its shift to the Big Ten. Then one of two things happen: either they stay at 15 until another program comes free or they take in another program in the footprint. Pitt or Iowa State would be among the possibilities

4) PAC/Big Ten renew scheduling alliance, now with Notre Dame part of the group. Peacock and NBC will be used to air games. USC and Stanford vs Notre Dame would be exclusive Comcast properties

Splitting up the SEC would be easy - just put the former Big 8/Big 12/SWC programs in one division except A&M

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


The PAC would stay the same but the scenarios on the Big Ten side would dramatically change. If they don't go beyond 15 then they could break it down like this:

Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois
Northwestern, Michigan, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Purdue
Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

What happens if they move to 16? Well, a couple of scenarios could happen:

- shifting Pitt to Penn State's division make sense. If you can put ND with Pitt and Penn State it would be better. Then you can keep the Ohio State/Michigan/Michigan State group united

- if Pitt can't work out economically then Iowa State is the other possible choice but that presents some complications. Cincinnati won't work due to Ohio State's power in the conference

- Syracuse might get a look as well and would complement the markets in the Northeast, in case markets would still matter more. However, Pitt has the academic chops Syracuse lacks

So the ideal pick up is Notre Dame and Pitt.

Notre Dame, Pitt, Penn State, Maryland
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota

If Notre Dame and Iowa State:

Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota
Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State
Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Notre Dame, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

That's an interesting thought process.

I've started to wonder too if Comcast might actually double down on sports given all their actions recently.

What if it went something like this?

Comcast buys out the Big Ten Network as you suggest and converts it to a property on Peacock. They just did it with the WWE so it could work structurally.

Now the issue is FOX...are they getting out of college sports? Would they part ways with their share of the BTN? That would likely mean they would be fine not bidding on the next round of Big Ten rights. That remains to be seen, but it's certainly plausible.

I don't see Notre Dame involved in this deal because ESPN would have to let the rights go...I don't see it. The ACC will continue to stumble on, but ND means a lot to their viability which in turn buoys ESPN's investment.

Here is where I think things will get interesting and it all revolves around the next installment of NFL rights. Take a look at this article from a few weeks ago...Amazon eyeing NFL package

A more detailed analysis of why the new NFL contract could change the game for everyone else.

Here's the point, if the NFL really shakes things up by taking serious content to a streamer then the game is going to change for everyone. Perhaps the primary reason for that is because whichever streaming service lands those rights will have a much bigger audience in short order. I think that's especially true for whoever lands the Sunday Ticket package.

I don't really agree with the people who say there won't be enough money left over after the NFL gets done, and that perhaps that might be a reason the SEC finished their contract early. Now, I'm sure the timing was relevant, but I don't think it's a financial issue so much as an issue of stability.

If the NFL, by virtue of its weight, switches viewers over to certain streaming platforms then the game will be different for everyone on down the food chain.

It looks like FOX, CBS, NBC, and ABC/ESPN will retain their current packages except that the Thursday Night Football might just go to Amazon. That's important as well, but I think the Sunday Ticket will have a bigger impact. What has actually limited Sunday Ticket in the past is it being tied to a cable/satellite service. It's a big switch technologically and perhaps financially to invest in Sunday Ticket from the perspective of a consumer. Make it easier for the consumer to get Sunday Ticket by putting everything online for a reasonable price and it changes things.

It doesn't look like Comcast is in on that, but what it does mean is they will have to ramp up the value of their streaming product to compensate for all the flexing elsewhere. Right now, FOX has no real streaming product. They are out of the game and don't seem to have any plan to get into it.

They will likely shoot for a large NFL package, but they might also bid for NHL games as well. The problem with FOX though is they have no current means of creating a new audience. No streaming product and the RSNs are gone. It does make sense that they would shed other properties that don't necessarily jive with their current goals. The Big Ten Network and subsequent league rights could be next on the docket to leave.

But here's where things might get interesting. The NFL deal is up at the end of the 2021 season. If one or more streaming platforms enter the business for NFL games then they might just get in on other college properties.

You want to know my theory on why the SEC got locked up when they did? ESPN didn't likely fear the loss of the SEC's T1, but they might fear the loss of other products as the market shifts and changes. They wanted to lock up the SEC now for 2 reasons...1) lock down tentpole content that also gave them the ability to increase the value of their streaming platform as SEC games will be on ESPN+ eventually and 2) hedge their bets against losing content from some of their other leagues such as the Big Ten, PAC 12, or Big 12.

The aforementioned 3 leagues will have opportunity to put significant rights with other companies because the advent of new streaming audiences will make it viable.

Nonetheless, ESPN's current investments are extremely important. I think they will either go hard after the entirety of the Big 12 or work to house the key Big 12 properties in existing leagues. The importance of the LHN strikes again.

When it comes to the PAC 12 or Big Ten, I think the odds of them moving more content away from ESPN are higher although not necessarily a slam dunk. I think a lot could depend on where these NFL rights land in short order because it will change the market.

With or without ND I think the possibility of both the Big Ten and PAC moving toward Comcast is a real one. With everything going to streaming, sooner or later, that would disadvantage a company like Fox, which has no major streaming platform.

Putting together the PAC Networks and BTN into a single platform would make loads of sense for Comcast. They could use USA and CNBC for games involving Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, USC, Oregon, UCLA, Indiana basketball, Big Ten hockey, etc.. NBC could create a Saturday basketball showcase to complement the NFL on Sunday nights.
01-27-2021 12:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1924
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
If the SEC expands again out of the Big 12 we will have to consider various issues:

1. The most economical expansion: Texas and Oklahoma

Other possible pairings: Texas and Texas Tech, Texas and Baylor, Texas and TCU, Texas and Kansas /// Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Kansas, Oklahoma and T.C.U.

How would you rate the likelihood of any of these and why?

2. If one or both insist on a travel companion is it worth it? Does the SEC counter offer, and if so what is the priority used: financial, academic, athletic?

Financial options: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, T.C.U.

Academic: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State

Athletic: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State

Appeasement: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Or Other?

Obviously an argument could be made for any of the above 4 school expansions.

Which do you think would be the most likely avenue pursued should such an expansion happen? And why do you think that?
(This post was last modified: 02-07-2021 02:31 PM by JRsec.)
02-07-2021 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1925
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-07-2021 02:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC expands again out of the Big 12 we will have to consider various issues:

1. The most economical expansion: Texas and Oklahoma

Other possible pairings: Texas and Texas Tech, Texas and Baylor, Texas and TCU, Texas and Kansas /// Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Kansas, Oklahoma and T.C.U.

How would you rate the likelihood of any of these and why?

2. If one or both insist on a travel companion is it worth it? Does the SEC counter offer, and if so what is the priority used: financial, academic, athletic?

Financial options: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, T.C.U.

Academic: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State

Athletic: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State

Appeasement: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Or Other?

Obviously an argument could be made for any of the above 4 school expansions.

Which do you think would be the most likely avenue pursued should such an expansion happen? And why do you think that?

1. Ranking the 8 named pairs by likelihood:
1 - Oklahoma & Oklahoma St : Easy. Bring the pair.
2 - Oklahoma & Kansas : Not too difficult. Kansas has to fear their future to some degree. This secures their future and aligns them with Missouri.
3 - Oklahoma & TCU : Underrated pairing. Avoids the issues with Texas and tightens the lock on the DFW market.
4 - Texas & Texas Tech : Easiest partner with Texas.
5 - Texas & TCU : Easy partner with Texas.
6 - Texas & Oklahoma : Golden goose scenario but I don’t think this will be terribly likely without tagalongs.
7 - Texas & Kansas : I don’t hate the idea, just doesn’t seem like a plausible pairing.
8 - Texas & Baylor : Despite Baylor’s status within the State of Texas, there’s bad PR, bad blood with the Aggies, and more likely in-state options.

Unnamed pairings i wouldn’t mind: Oklahoma or Texas with Iowa St or West Virginia

2. Group of 4 order: appeasement, financial, athletic, academic

(3) What should happen? Most likely to happen?
Should - Texas & Oklahoma only : This makes the most sense for the schools involved and the conference. Highest value pairing and leaves open the door for 2 more spots down the road.
Likely - Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St : Appeasement seems to be the path of least resistance.

Crazy move to consider: To 20 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Iowa St. Hits every school named in a 4-school option above except TCU which wouldn’t matter.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2021 02:13 AM by BePcr07.)
02-08-2021 02:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1926
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.
02-08-2021 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1927
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.
02-08-2021 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1928
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.
02-08-2021 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1929
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 03:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.

We have some things to sort out if the pairing is not Texas and Oklahoma. If we don't land Oklahoma and Texas insists on a partner do we have he wiggle room to decide whether it is Baylor, Tech, or TCU? If it is Oklahoma do we have to take OSU to get them? If we can choose their travel companion then Kansas helps cement Missouri adds another state, gives us an AAU school, and addresses basketball. But T.C.U. with Oklahoma and A&M absolutely covers DFW.

You say we should think outside of the box, but the answers are inside the box. Texas gives us with A&M all of Texas. We don't really need a third Texas school. At that point the grand slam is Oklahoma, especially when sculping divisions comes into play.

OU/UT = Auburn/UGA, UT/A&M = Au/Al , UT/LSU = AL/TN, A&M/LSU = Fl/UGA

Those additions create a true balance between the 2 divisions.

Without that you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West because it would result in too much power in the East. Oklahoma and somebody adds but not enough. Texas and somebody adds but not enough. And therein resides the issue. Even OU/KU don't balance out Aub/Ala to the East.

If we add 4 we could work 3 divisions of 6 but again achieving a competitive balance just is going to be tough.
02-08-2021 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1930
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.

We have some things to sort out if the pairing is not Texas and Oklahoma. If we don't land Oklahoma and Texas insists on a partner do we have he wiggle room to decide whether it is Baylor, Tech, or TCU? If it is Oklahoma do we have to take OSU to get them? If we can choose their travel companion then Kansas helps cement Missouri adds another state, gives us an AAU school, and addresses basketball. But T.C.U. with Oklahoma and A&M absolutely covers DFW.

You say we should think outside of the box, but the answers are inside the box. Texas gives us with A&M all of Texas. We don't really need a third Texas school. At that point the grand slam is Oklahoma, especially when sculping divisions comes into play.

OU/UT = Auburn/UGA, UT/A&M = Au/Al , UT/LSU = AL/TN, A&M/LSU = Fl/UGA

Those additions create a true balance between the 2 divisions.

Without that you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West because it would result in too much power in the East. Oklahoma and somebody adds but not enough. Texas and somebody adds but not enough. And therein resides the issue. Even OU/KU don't balance out Aub/Ala to the East.

If we add 4 we could work 3 divisions of 6 but again achieving a competitive balance just is going to be tough.

From the perspective of who should we want, well that's easy. Texas and Oklahoma.

If making that move happen is as easy as inviting them and only them then the problem is solved.

I doubt it's going to be that simple though. It's possible, but I can't remember a time for any league where such a monumental acquisition was as easy as making the invite. If for no more reason than we could have simply done just that in 2011.

I don't know whether Texas is ready to call it quits. It appears they weren't in 2011. Oklahoma should be much easier to acquire, but Oklahoma State is probably necessary for the purpose of making it simple.

It also matters what ESPN wants. If they think they can get a better bargain out of the entire Big 12 contract than they can by paying for Texas and OU in the SEC then it's all moot. It will be the Florida State scenario all over again.
02-08-2021 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1931
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.

We have some things to sort out if the pairing is not Texas and Oklahoma. If we don't land Oklahoma and Texas insists on a partner do we have he wiggle room to decide whether it is Baylor, Tech, or TCU? If it is Oklahoma do we have to take OSU to get them? If we can choose their travel companion then Kansas helps cement Missouri adds another state, gives us an AAU school, and addresses basketball. But T.C.U. with Oklahoma and A&M absolutely covers DFW.

You say we should think outside of the box, but the answers are inside the box. Texas gives us with A&M all of Texas. We don't really need a third Texas school. At that point the grand slam is Oklahoma, especially when sculping divisions comes into play.

OU/UT = Auburn/UGA, UT/A&M = Au/Al , UT/LSU = AL/TN, A&M/LSU = Fl/UGA

Those additions create a true balance between the 2 divisions.

Without that you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West because it would result in too much power in the East. Oklahoma and somebody adds but not enough. Texas and somebody adds but not enough. And therein resides the issue. Even OU/KU don't balance out Aub/Ala to the East.

If we add 4 we could work 3 divisions of 6 but again achieving a competitive balance just is going to be tough.

Divisionless with 3-4 annual rivals mostly avoids imbalance.
02-08-2021 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1932
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 03:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.

We have some things to sort out if the pairing is not Texas and Oklahoma. If we don't land Oklahoma and Texas insists on a partner do we have he wiggle room to decide whether it is Baylor, Tech, or TCU? If it is Oklahoma do we have to take OSU to get them? If we can choose their travel companion then Kansas helps cement Missouri adds another state, gives us an AAU school, and addresses basketball. But T.C.U. with Oklahoma and A&M absolutely covers DFW.

You say we should think outside of the box, but the answers are inside the box. Texas gives us with A&M all of Texas. We don't really need a third Texas school. At that point the grand slam is Oklahoma, especially when sculping divisions comes into play.

OU/UT = Auburn/UGA, UT/A&M = Au/Al , UT/LSU = AL/TN, A&M/LSU = Fl/UGA

Those additions create a true balance between the 2 divisions.

Without that you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West because it would result in too much power in the East. Oklahoma and somebody adds but not enough. Texas and somebody adds but not enough. And therein resides the issue. Even OU/KU don't balance out Aub/Ala to the East.

If we add 4 we could work 3 divisions of 6 but again achieving a competitive balance just is going to be tough.

From the perspective of who should we want, well that's easy. Texas and Oklahoma.

If making that move happen is as easy as inviting them and only them then the problem is solved.

I doubt it's going to be that simple though. It's possible, but I can't remember a time for any league where such a monumental acquisition was as easy as making the invite. If for no more reason than we could have simply done just that in 2011.

I don't know whether Texas is ready to call it quits. It appears they weren't in 2011. Oklahoma should be much easier to acquire, but Oklahoma State is probably necessary for the purpose of making it simple.

It also matters what ESPN wants. If they think they can get a better bargain out of the entire Big 12 contract than they can by paying for Texas and OU in the SEC then it's all moot. It will be the Florida State scenario all over again.

The Big 12's estimated 2019-20 revenue, which is yet to be reported, will be about 37 million per year per school. Their escalators for 2020-1, 2021-2, 2022-3, and 2023-4 should add another 6 million. That takes them to 43 million. Add a generous 15% bump (5% more than they are likely to get) and it takes them to the 49 million range. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas represent 45% of the total value of the Big 10. So in a contract worth 449 million the big 3 are worth 220.5 million of that. So by moving them to the SEC and paying them 70 million each it more fully monetizes Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas (not that Kansas deserves that much) and leaves 228.5 million for the other 7 schools. That's 32.6 million each. ESPN can promote the top 3 schools from the AAC to the Big 12 for the added cost of 60 million. And they save 10 million by moving the Big 3 to the SEC.

So for a cost of 20 million tops they build a better tweener conference out of the Big 12, the take the best of the rest of the G5 to refill the AAC and the G5 shrinks.

Texas is happy. for distancing themselves with the recruiting base. Oklahoma is happy to finally be on equal footing with Texas. Kansas is thrilled to be elevated. And the 20 million for the promotion of the AAC schools to the Big 12 is covered by the elimination of overhead for the LHN which is eclipsed by enough with SEC revenues to save ESPN the cost and the LHN becomes the SECW channel which is one of the 3 existing channels for the SECN.

Likely South Florida, UCF, Houston, and Cincinnati get the call up and West Virginia moves to the ACC, perhaps with Vanderbilt.

I don't see how it will be better for ESPN to continue to underpay Oklahoma while funneling more money to Texas through the LHN, and give all of the other 7 schools 17 million more per year than they are worth.
02-08-2021 04:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1933
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 04:00 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:09 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  One consideration is this...

The closer we get to a situation where the Big 12 could actually bring down a decent contract, the more schools we will have to offer in order to get them to consider a different option.

2 is easier for us.

4 makes more sense from their perspective.

A while back, I proposed a strategy for cracking the nut. Instead of putting Oklahoma or Texas in a position of strength and allowing them to decide which offer they wanted, I said offer TCU first. TCU is a good product by itself and I don't think we would regret having them.

Back in 2011, I half expected TCU to be the other addition along with Texas A&M, but it's clear now the contract called for a second market.

Anyway, taking TCU puts a lot of pressure on both Oklahoma and Texas. They are a better addition than either Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It would secure an SEC presence in DFW with all the media exposure that brings. It would be akin to having a school in Atlanta in a scenario where such a city is basic virgin territory. Not that we don't have fans in DFW now, but we are the minority party.

For TCU's part, I don't see why they wouldn't take that offer. Sure, they would probably play TX schools all the time if they had their preference, but they are financially insecure without the blessing of Texas and Oklahoma. If the Big 12 goes away then it will be hard for them to find a comparable home. The reason for this is not because they have a weak or poor program. The reason is purely logistical. In the SEC, they are safe and prosperous.

For the SEC, however, they are a solid product in a good market. They merit inclusion. Given the situation, I think it is worth the risk.

Take TCU and you alter the math. For one thing, the last thing Oklahoma or Texas want is another SEC school smack in the middle of DFW. At that point, either of those schools starts to look at the situation differently.

I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.

We have some things to sort out if the pairing is not Texas and Oklahoma. If we don't land Oklahoma and Texas insists on a partner do we have he wiggle room to decide whether it is Baylor, Tech, or TCU? If it is Oklahoma do we have to take OSU to get them? If we can choose their travel companion then Kansas helps cement Missouri adds another state, gives us an AAU school, and addresses basketball. But T.C.U. with Oklahoma and A&M absolutely covers DFW.

You say we should think outside of the box, but the answers are inside the box. Texas gives us with A&M all of Texas. We don't really need a third Texas school. At that point the grand slam is Oklahoma, especially when sculping divisions comes into play.

OU/UT = Auburn/UGA, UT/A&M = Au/Al , UT/LSU = AL/TN, A&M/LSU = Fl/UGA

Those additions create a true balance between the 2 divisions.

Without that you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West because it would result in too much power in the East. Oklahoma and somebody adds but not enough. Texas and somebody adds but not enough. And therein resides the issue. Even OU/KU don't balance out Aub/Ala to the East.

If we add 4 we could work 3 divisions of 6 but again achieving a competitive balance just is going to be tough.

Divisionless with 3-4 annual rivals mostly avoids imbalance.

I get it and it would work, but right now I don't think the powers that be will head in that direction. They like divisions. And if Texas and Oklahoma or any other Big 12 schools are added I think we stick with divisions.
02-08-2021 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #1934
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(02-08-2021 04:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 04:00 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 03:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 10:49 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I like TCU and think you are right that having a school in DFW is a decent concept. That being said, Texas Tech brings some basketball prowess now that TCU doesn't. I still think Texas/Tech/OK/State are the most likely 4.

To me, those 4 work, but if the SEC is dead set on only moving to 16 then they're going to have to think outside the box.

We have some things to sort out if the pairing is not Texas and Oklahoma. If we don't land Oklahoma and Texas insists on a partner do we have he wiggle room to decide whether it is Baylor, Tech, or TCU? If it is Oklahoma do we have to take OSU to get them? If we can choose their travel companion then Kansas helps cement Missouri adds another state, gives us an AAU school, and addresses basketball. But T.C.U. with Oklahoma and A&M absolutely covers DFW.

You say we should think outside of the box, but the answers are inside the box. Texas gives us with A&M all of Texas. We don't really need a third Texas school. At that point the grand slam is Oklahoma, especially when sculping divisions comes into play.

OU/UT = Auburn/UGA, UT/A&M = Au/Al , UT/LSU = AL/TN, A&M/LSU = Fl/UGA

Those additions create a true balance between the 2 divisions.

Without that you can't move Auburn and Alabama to the East and Missouri to the West because it would result in too much power in the East. Oklahoma and somebody adds but not enough. Texas and somebody adds but not enough. And therein resides the issue. Even OU/KU don't balance out Aub/Ala to the East.

If we add 4 we could work 3 divisions of 6 but again achieving a competitive balance just is going to be tough.

Divisionless with 3-4 annual rivals mostly avoids imbalance.

I get it and it would work, but right now I don't think the powers that be will head in that direction. They like divisions. And if Texas and Oklahoma or any other Big 12 schools are added I think we stick with divisions.

Maybe the resolution is not a balance of power but a balance of name brands. Let’s say it is expansion with the Texoma-4.

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

The does seem to be a slight name brand imbalance towards the South but there’s enough in the other divisions to make it work.
02-09-2021 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1935
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Here's a scenario to chew on...

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech agree to come to the SEC.

Now, let's throw out a curveball, we invite Iowa and Nebraska

Then we invite Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and BYU.

If all that works out then we have the middle portion of the country sewn up. A 24 team league remains relatively regional as far as travel goes because obviously you're not playing everyone regularly.

Midwest: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa

Southwest: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri

East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

South: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas, LSU

Now you have 4 distinct divisions.
02-09-2021 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #1936
RE: If
SEC + Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, South Florida
PAC + Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Houston
ACC + Central Florida, West Virginia

I figure that moving Houston, Central Florida and South Florida up wouldn't be a problem because they'd be replacing programs that would be left behind in the Big 12. So there's no change in the P65 group. Texahoma would be split between the SEC and PAC, with the AAC/Big 12 bringing up the rear. Perhaps Disney entices the remaining teams from the Big 12 to join the AAC for better pay than what they'd receive by remaining in a massively depleted XII.

Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, Navy
Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple, East Carolina, Appalachian State, Tulane

Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, South Florida, Auburn
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Louisville
NC State, Wake Forest, Central Florida, Virginia Tech

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Southern Cal
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston
03-07-2021 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1937
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-07-2021 02:25 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  SEC + Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, South Florida
PAC + Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Houston
ACC + Central Florida, West Virginia

I figure that moving Houston, Central Florida and South Florida up wouldn't be a problem because they'd be replacing programs that would be left behind in the Big 12. So there's no change in the P65 group. Texahoma would be split between the SEC and PAC, with the AAC/Big 12 bringing up the rear. Perhaps Disney entices the remaining teams from the Big 12 to join the AAC for better pay than what they'd receive by remaining in a massively depleted XII.

Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, Navy
Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple, East Carolina, Appalachian State, Tulane

Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, South Florida, Auburn
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Louisville
NC State, Wake Forest, Central Florida, Virginia Tech

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Southern Cal
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston

Just forget about the GOR's for a moment and ask yourself which 2 conferences could make leaving profitable enough for ACC schools to make a final movement to 4 conferences of 18 possible? The SEC and Big 10 will essentially be doubling the ACC's media rights by 2024-5. Couple that with the bleak outlook afferward due to a post COVID debt load by many athletic departments, the declining viewership for cable TV, the rise of streaming, the aging of the Boomers, and the negative impacts of NIL and Pay for Play with the court cases pending, and political fallout and the future looks a lot bleaker than it did 2 years ago. So even the most supposedly secure of the ACC schools might be interested in doubling those revenue streams. Place 12 of them and the GOR is moot. The circumstances make it much more feasible.

So the Big 10 picks up: Notre Dame, Virginia, Missouri, Kansas
Think 75 million per school in media payouts

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin


The SEC picks up: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Florida State

Think 75 million per school in media payouts

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech



The Big 12 and PAC use the expiration of GOR's to build another conference:
Think 65 million per school in media payouts.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Clemson, Miami, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Texas


And the New and Improved AAC:

Think 45 million per school in media payouts

Army, Boston College, Navy, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Air Force, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oregon State, Texas Christian, Washington State
Baylor, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest


Now those would become the four P conferences comprised of 72 teams and each champion would be invited to a 4 team CFP. Conference champions would be decided in a 3 game playoff between the 3 divisional champs and the best at large.

The only thing that a committee of non participating coaches would do is seed the field for the CFP. No more committees.

All 12 games would be P games with 1 preseason game against any other FCS or former FBS school not in the P4.

This is the 65 former P schools plus (Air Force, Army, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Navy, and South Florida
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2021 02:53 AM by JRsec.)
03-07-2021 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1938
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(03-07-2021 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-07-2021 02:25 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  SEC + Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, South Florida
PAC + Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Houston
ACC + Central Florida, West Virginia

I figure that moving Houston, Central Florida and South Florida up wouldn't be a problem because they'd be replacing programs that would be left behind in the Big 12. So there's no change in the P65 group. Texahoma would be split between the SEC and PAC, with the AAC/Big 12 bringing up the rear. Perhaps Disney entices the remaining teams from the Big 12 to join the AAC for better pay than what they'd receive by remaining in a massively depleted XII.

Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, Navy
Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple, East Carolina, Appalachian State, Tulane

Oklahoma, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Texas A&M, Arkansas
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, South Florida, Auburn
Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College
UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Louisville
NC State, Wake Forest, Central Florida, Virginia Tech

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
Cal, Stanford, UCLA, Southern Cal
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston

Just forget about the GOR's for a moment and ask yourself which 2 conferences could make leaving profitable enough for ACC schools to make a final movement to 4 conferences of 18 possible? The SEC and Big 10 will essentially be doubling the ACC's media rights by 2024-5. Couple that with the bleak outlook afferward due to a post COVID debt load by many athletic departments, the declining viewership for cable TV, the rise of streaming, the aging of the Boomers, and the negative impacts of NIL and Pay for Play with the court cases pending, and political fallout and the future looks a lot bleaker than it did 2 years ago. So even the most supposedly secure of the ACC schools might be interested in doubling those revenue streams. Place 12 of them and the GOR is moot. The circumstances make it much more feasible.

So the Big 10 picks up: Notre Dame, Virginia, Missouri, Kansas
Think 75 million per school in media payouts

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin


The SEC picks up: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Florida State

Think 75 million per school in media payouts

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech



The Big 12 and PAC use the expiration of GOR's to build another conference:
Think 65 million per school in media payouts.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Clemson, Miami, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Texas


And the New and Improved AAC:

Think 45 million per school in media payouts

Army, Boston College, Navy, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Air Force, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oregon State, Texas Christian, Washington State
Baylor, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest


Now those would become the four P conferences comprised of 72 teams and each champion would be invited to a 4 team CFP. Conference champions would be decided in a 3 game playoff between the 3 divisional champs and the best at large.

The only thing that a committee of non participating coaches would do is seed the field for the CFP. No more committees.

All 12 games would be P games with 1 preseason game against any other FCS or former FBS school not in the P4.

This is the 65 former P schools plus (Air Force, Army, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Navy, and South Florida

Flip Missouri and Kansas for Duke and UNC, and I think it works, though the new Big 12/PAC winding up with Clemson/Miami is an odd fit.

I also wonder if the Big 12/PAC can really merge culturally speaking and also based on current alignments (PAC with Big 10, Big 12 with SEC). The SEC wouldn't let the Sugar Bowl be versus the AAC, they would want to keep the relationship with the Big 12/PAC conference, but the Big 10 would want the same thing.

How would you solve the Rose/Sugar issue in this format?
03-08-2021 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #1939
RE: If ...
(03-08-2021 01:02 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(03-07-2021 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Just forget about the GOR's for a moment and ask yourself which 2 conferences could make leaving profitable enough for ACC schools to make a final movement to 4 conferences of 18 possible? The SEC and Big 10 will essentially be doubling the ACC's media rights by 2024-5. Couple that with the bleak outlook afferward due to a post COVID debt load by many athletic departments, the declining viewership for cable TV, the rise of streaming, the aging of the Boomers, and the negative impacts of NIL and Pay for Play with the court cases pending, and political fallout and the future looks a lot bleaker than it did 2 years ago. So even the most supposedly secure of the ACC schools might be interested in doubling those revenue streams. Place 12 of them and the GOR is moot. The circumstances make it much more feasible.

So the Big 10 picks up: Notre Dame, Virginia, Missouri, Kansas
Think 75 million per school in media payouts

Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Virginia
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin


The SEC picks up: Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and Florida State

Think 75 million per school in media payouts

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech



The Big 12 and PAC use the expiration of GOR's to build another conference:
Think 65 million per school in media payouts.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah
California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington
Clemson, Miami, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State, Texas


And the New and Improved AAC:

Think 45 million per school in media payouts

Army, Boston College, Navy, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Air Force, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oregon State, Texas Christian, Washington State
Baylor, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, Wake Forest


Now those would become the four P conferences comprised of 72 teams and each champion would be invited to a 4 team CFP. Conference champions would be decided in a 3 game playoff between the 3 divisional champs and the best at large.

The only thing that a committee of non participating coaches would do is seed the field for the CFP. No more committees.

All 12 games would be P games with 1 preseason game against any other FCS or former FBS school not in the P4.

This is the 65 former P schools plus (Air Force, Army, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Navy, and South Florida

Flip Missouri and Kansas for Duke and UNC, and I think it works, though the new Big 12/PAC winding up with Clemson/Miami is an odd fit.

Probably because UNC is paranoid about its position within the educational institution hierarchy in the state of NC. Should the SEC take all three of the Raleigh-area programs then that fear is mitigated somewhat.

Mizzou could establish rivalries with Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, as well as renewing hostilities with Nebraska. So they would be a fit there.

You're right on Clemson/Miami being an odd fit but I think he'll argue that those two wouldn't add any more value to the SEC once other top properties from the ACC are taken. The Big Ten would be too far for them to make an impact. So putting them together with UT/OU would be the next best thing.
03-09-2021 06:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1940
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Well chaos and confusion is about to set in with legal changes concerning the nature of athletes' amateur status and their rights and compensation.

What that ultimately means is that those with the most revenue will be in the best position to succeed.

Moves now will be more about money than ever.

All the SEC needs to do is keep it simple.

1. Ask Texas and Oklahoma to join us. If they want Texas Tech and Oklahoma to come along then fine as both have strong T2 ability and draw viewers from large markets (Texas and DFW+OK). If Vanderbilt were to opt out add Kansas.

2. If we need a private add TCU or Baylor and if Vandy stays invite Kansas anyway and take a hard look at a second Florida school. Approach FSU but take a hard look at what a developed USF might bring to the table.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2021 03:44 PM by JRsec.)
07-07-2021 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.