CintiFan
2nd String
Posts: 386
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Ohio St./ Cinti
Location:
|
RE: Boren's rattling chains. What does that mean?
(06-27-2015 12:53 PM)JRsec Wrote: (06-27-2015 12:42 PM)CintiFan Wrote: (06-27-2015 09:24 AM)JRsec Wrote: (06-27-2015 02:17 AM)CintiFan Wrote: Let me throw out one other possibility.
If you think the timing of Boren's comments are related to the BIG media negotiations, then why would the result be to build up the SECN by adding OU and FSU?
Wouldn't it make more sense that the BIG is telling ESPN that if it wants a larger share of BIG programming, it needs to help the BIG get to 16-18 teams?
The BIG would be telling ESPN that it wants to add Kansas and OU, but OU won't come without Texas. ESPN owns a chunk of the LHN, but the compromise might be adding Texas too, with the BTN buying out the LHN and saving ESPN's ass from further losses.
BIG gets what it wants, with KU, OU and UT to the BIG (with an 18th spot open for the highest bidder to the east). ESPN get what it wants - BIG media rights and an exit strategy from the LHN. Fox goes along for the ride, with a larger BTN network, and perhaps with ESPN as a junior partner in it.
Because Texas will go where they want to go and I seriously doubt they have any intentions of playing in the Big 10. For one it would alienate most of their T shirt fans and tick off a significant portion of their alumni base. Secondly, such a move would most assuredly solidify A&M's position within the state. I could see Texas in the PAC long before I could see them in the Big 10. Thirdly there isn't much in the Big 10 to multiply Oklahoma's value to ESPN and certainly not to multiply ESPN's lassoed product, Texas. They wouldn't get to play all of the top 5 Big 10 schools every year and the interest in those games would be tepid at best. And finally utilizing the timing of the Big 10's needs is just a way to strengthen OU's bargaining position with all other interested parties. Even if it were the SEC's TV negotiations as part of the timing they would still be seeking bids from the PAC & Big 10. Schools don't move in a vacuum. Finally do you think ESPN wants to give up majority of interest in college footballs top product and moneymaker to get a piece of a conference where their top product props up their competitor's profits??? Think again. Plus as long as Texas remains even remotely a possibility for the ACC then ESPN will continue to hold out hopes of eventually landing Notre Dame.
I don't think it's quite the open and shut case you present.
In an 18 team BIG, Texas would play Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas every year. With divisions or pods, Texas would probably play one or two games a year against OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State or Wisconsin. Texas would still be able to schedule out of conference games with Baylor, TCU or other regional teams, all of whom would bend over backwards to keep Texas on their schedule. That should appease the Tshirt crowd. Add the benefit of academics and CIC, and the BIG may look pretty good to Texas Administration and Regents too.
A&M's position is already solid. As long as they can field competitive teams in the SEC, they will get their fair share of recruits. I just don't see Texas following A&M to the SEC. Their pride won't allow it. PAC is an option but not the best because of the time zones. But playing Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas, plus a couple of the BIG powers each year seems to me to be at least as, if not more, attractive than playing ACC teams when only FSU is the real powerhouse. Sure, they may get on ND's schedule once every few years, and can schedule ND as an OOC game, but a BIG Texas could do that anyway.
The stumbling block, as you say, is whether ESPN can be enticed to go along. Keeping a piece of BIG media rights, getting bought out of a long term bad deal for the LHN and potentially getting a piece of the BTN might do it. But think of the consequences of TX, OK and KU moving to the BIG - that means there is nowhere else for Notre Dame to go except the ACC. The fallout might well be ND finally joins the conference as a full member, making the ACC a stable long term conference - and making ESPN very happy indeed.
I've been around people who had to make conference decisions all of my life. It's strictly business, all angles considered, all contingencies hopefully imagined and explored, and then a bottom line decision. At no time did "pride" ever enter into it, ever! Texas is the most successful college sports brand ever when it comes to business. They didn't get there by salving their pride. They got there by using their leverage. Don't confuse leverage with pride. Texas will do ultimately what is in their best interest and nothing else. The Big 10 is not in their self interest. It's too far. Their donors and fans aren't interested. They culturally don't identify with the Big 10. Academics would be the only selling point for the B1G. It really is cut and dried.
Oklahoma on the other hand has more reason to consider the PAC and the Big 10. That's where the sales job has to be made by any conference that wants them. Geography and familiarity with old rivals is on the side of the SEC. Nebraska is on the side of the Big 10. Their desire to improve their academic standing is on the side of the Big 10 and the PAC. Having Colorado in the PAC helps slightly. OU is the swing state here. But people have it backwards when it comes to OU and UT. OU needs Texas not the other way around. OU will be more likely to do what Texas wants to do and that is the inertia that the Big 10, SEC, or PAC will have to overcome.
I don't recall much speculation that Texas was looking or is looking at the SEC other than a few recent message board posts. Texas thought about going PAC when realignment was hot a few years ago and now most speculation has them looking at either independence, like ND, or possibly creating a western pod for the ACC. Texas is a top notch academic institution, and from what I read, looks down on the SEC for both its academic reputation and its perceived tendency to play fast and loose with recruiting rules. Couple those with the animosity between Texas and A&M and I don't see how the SEC is Texas first, second or third preferred option if keeping the Big 12 intact is not viable. Call it pride, or whatever, but I just don't see them moving to the SEC if other options, including the BIG, are available.
Oklahoma has for several years been the suckling pig at Texas' teet, but I think Boren's comments clearly tell Texas that time is over. I think of it as more of a symbiotic relationship. Oklahoma thinks it needs Texas as a conference mate to continue recruiting in Texas. However, Texas really needs Oklahoma not to desert the Big 12 because without them, the Big 12 has no marquee game to sell to the networks. Without Oklahoma, the Big 12 conference schedule will be weaker, leaving the Big 12 even more challenged to place a team in the playoffs than they are now. Texas has to take an Oklahoma threat to leave seriously and begin finding a solution that keeps Oklahoma happy too. Thus far, the only 'plan' I see is either to hope the BIG and SEC carve up the ACC, pushing FSU, Clemson, Miami and GTech into the waiting arms of the Big 12 (not likely) or to add two more crappy teams to get back to 12 and a conference title game (not really a solution). A rules change to allow a conference title game seems likely to happen anyway, so why even think about adding two more crappy teams.
I think Boren's comments are a warning to Texas to either fix the conference (not really possible, in my view) or come up with an exit strategy and find a better conference to call home. If we look at existing conferences, I think the BIG is the best option.
However, my favorite realignment speculation would be an entirely different solution.
|
|