Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #221
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.
12-30-2019 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #222
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

1. The addition of either of them locks the SEC into a dead heat with the Big 10 for the top slot in revenue.

2. The addition of both locks us into the superior position for revenue for the foreseeable future.

3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Then you play 7 division games 2 games that rotate annually against the other division and you rotate through all 15 of the other schools every 4 years. You schedule 1 OOC P game and make sure it syncs up as a home game when you are on the 4 home conference game year and your two buy games give you 7 home tickets every year.

So expanding with those two schools gives us an opportunity to make divisional play more local, to balance the divisions, and to cement our advantages moving forward.

That's why you make the move. And the pair of them actually add ~5 million more to the annual payouts in content value and they boost our T3 network as well.
12-30-2019 12:11 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: #223
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(12-30-2019 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

1. The addition of either of them locks the SEC into a dead heat with the Big 10 for the top slot in revenue.

2. The addition of both locks us into the superior position for revenue for the foreseeable future.

3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Then you play 7 division games 2 games that rotate annually against the other division and you rotate through all 15 of the other schools every 4 years. You schedule 1 OOC P game and make sure it syncs up as a home game when you are on the 4 home conference game year and your two buy games give you 7 home tickets every year.

So expanding with those two schools gives us an opportunity to make divisional play more local, to balance the divisions, and to cement our advantages moving forward.

That's why you make the move. And the pair of them actually add ~5 million more to the annual payouts in content value and they boost our T3 network as well.

It also stops other conferences from gaining Texas/Oklahoma.
12-30-2019 02:06 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: #224
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(12-29-2019 03:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Going to point this out:

What doomed the SWC? The final years saw:

-Small regional footprint with less population

-UT power tripping going unchecked

-Good teams leaving

-Non-competitive play on the national level

-Contracts that couldn’t compete with the bigger leagues

All this has happened before and it’s all happening again in the L10

And we saw the fruit of that in the Peach Bowl the other night.

To be fair, LSU has been an exceptional team this season, but Oklahoma was no match on any level. Early in the 2nd quarter when OU tried that ridiculous half double-pass/half flea flicker trick play, you knew it was over. The Sooners were desperate. What they were good at was not working. That's the only reason you even think about something like that in that sort of situation.

That sort of dynamic is compounded by the reality the gap is about to grow. The SEC will soon get a large new payday.

There's no real depth in the Big 12. It's chock full of programs that can't attract the best talent and their recruiting grounds are limited to basically one state. The only thing that's kept the Big 12 afloat is that TX is among the elite states for producing large numbers of D1 players.

So you take programs like Oklahoma and Texas who have resources and can build strong programs, but it's becoming harder and harder for them to compete nationally. They can't be battle tested in their own league.

Texas is the perfect example. Historically, they're an underachiever, but Mack Brown had them in a pretty good place. Now? It's been a decade since they've been relevant.

Part of that is poor decision making on the part of their administration. Part of that is their last truly good season came in 2009 and within 2 years, most of the best programs in the league had departed.

It's only going to get worse.
12-30-2019 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guardian Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 325
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Alabama, SBC
Location: VA
Post: #225
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(12-30-2019 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Hadn't thought of this one, but it does seem awesome! Especially if both have play-in implications for the Conference title game and/or the CFP.
12-31-2019 08:37 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #226
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(12-30-2019 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

1. The addition of either of them locks the SEC into a dead heat with the Big 10 for the top slot in revenue.

2. The addition of both locks us into the superior position for revenue for the foreseeable future.

3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Then you play 7 division games 2 games that rotate annually against the other division and you rotate through all 15 of the other schools every 4 years. You schedule 1 OOC P game and make sure it syncs up as a home game when you are on the 4 home conference game year and your two buy games give you 7 home tickets every year.

So expanding with those two schools gives us an opportunity to make divisional play more local, to balance the divisions, and to cement our advantages moving forward.

That's why you make the move. And the pair of them actually add ~5 million more to the annual payouts in content value and they boost our T3 network as well.

I guess what I'm saying is at only 5 million more per school I'm not sure we haven't reach a point of diminishing returns.

The league is already exceptionally difficult to win as it is, is it worth essentially locking out the bottom 8-10 teams in the league from ever winning? Hell, we have several schools (A&M, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy) that have never even won their division and others (SC, Miss St, Missouri, Arkansas) that have gone to Atlanta only 1-3 times.

Perhaps it's worth it to lock out the Big Ten from getting them but honestly if I was the president of SC (or Arkansas, Vandy, UK, Miss St, etc) I'd rather take 50 million and stand pat than take on those behemoths and get 55 million.
01-02-2020 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #227
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-02-2020 02:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

1. The addition of either of them locks the SEC into a dead heat with the Big 10 for the top slot in revenue.

2. The addition of both locks us into the superior position for revenue for the foreseeable future.

3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Then you play 7 division games 2 games that rotate annually against the other division and you rotate through all 15 of the other schools every 4 years. You schedule 1 OOC P game and make sure it syncs up as a home game when you are on the 4 home conference game year and your two buy games give you 7 home tickets every year.

So expanding with those two schools gives us an opportunity to make divisional play more local, to balance the divisions, and to cement our advantages moving forward.

That's why you make the move. And the pair of them actually add ~5 million more to the annual payouts in content value and they boost our T3 network as well.

I guess what I'm saying is at only 5 million more per school I'm not sure we haven't reach a point of diminishing returns.

The league is already exceptionally difficult to win as it is, is it worth essentially locking out the bottom 8-10 teams in the league from ever winning? Hell, we have several schools (A&M, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy) that have never even won their division and others (SC, Miss St, Missouri, Arkansas) that have gone to Atlanta only 1-3 times.

Perhaps it's worth it to lock out the Big Ten from getting them but honestly if I was the president of SC (or Arkansas, Vandy, UK, Miss St, etc) I'd rather take 50 million and stand pat than take on those behemoths and get 55 million.

If we were fortunate enough to add Texas and Oklahoma the SEC is very likely done with realignment. Our revenue would be the leader of all conferences and could not be surpassed and the Big 10 with the additions of a Kansas and later Notre Dame could remain very close and neither of us would have incentive to add again because there would be literally no programs left that were contiguous and could add value to one of the two conferences unless we raided each other, which I don't see happening.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Those divisions don't need protected rivals. Play your 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division every year for 9 conference games, have 1 OOC P game which might be an annual rival, and two buy games. Rotate the OOC P game as a home game in the years you have 4 conference home games and 5 conference away game and with the 2 buy games every school still has 7 home dates.

Nothing needs to change beyond that. Texas can use their two buy games to play in state foes and they will have their 7 home games, A&M on away years, and the 2 buy games to give them at worst 9 games in the state of Texas a year and possibly 10. They can still work a home and home with the P OOC game with anyone they wish which is essentially the business model they run now.

By doing this Texas moves from 5 P teams within their state plus OU and OSU to 2 P teams with SEC branding within their state and only OU with SEC branding competing with them for recruits. This will revive Texas football faster than anything else they could do.

These moves should also help to revitalize Arkansas and Missouri and the relationship only enhances L.S.U. because it helps to get Alabama distanced a bit from Louisiana recruits.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2020 09:36 PM by JRsec.)
01-14-2020 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #228
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-14-2020 09:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-02-2020 02:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

1. The addition of either of them locks the SEC into a dead heat with the Big 10 for the top slot in revenue.

2. The addition of both locks us into the superior position for revenue for the foreseeable future.

3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Then you play 7 division games 2 games that rotate annually against the other division and you rotate through all 15 of the other schools every 4 years. You schedule 1 OOC P game and make sure it syncs up as a home game when you are on the 4 home conference game year and your two buy games give you 7 home tickets every year.

So expanding with those two schools gives us an opportunity to make divisional play more local, to balance the divisions, and to cement our advantages moving forward.

That's why you make the move. And the pair of them actually add ~5 million more to the annual payouts in content value and they boost our T3 network as well.

I guess what I'm saying is at only 5 million more per school I'm not sure we haven't reach a point of diminishing returns.

The league is already exceptionally difficult to win as it is, is it worth essentially locking out the bottom 8-10 teams in the league from ever winning? Hell, we have several schools (A&M, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy) that have never even won their division and others (SC, Miss St, Missouri, Arkansas) that have gone to Atlanta only 1-3 times.

Perhaps it's worth it to lock out the Big Ten from getting them but honestly if I was the president of SC (or Arkansas, Vandy, UK, Miss St, etc) I'd rather take 50 million and stand pat than take on those behemoths and get 55 million.

If we were fortunate enough to add Texas and Oklahoma the SEC is very likely done with realignment. Our revenue would be the leader of all conferences and could not be surpassed and the Big 10 with the additions of a Kansas and later Notre Dame could remain very close and neither of us would have incentive to add again because there would be literally no programs left that were contiguous and could add value to one of the two conferences unless we raided each other, which I don't see happening.

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Those divisions don't need protected rivals. Play your 7 divisional games and rotate 2 from the other division every year for 9 conference games, have 1 OOC P game which might be an annual rival, and two buy games. Rotate the OOC P game as a home game in the years you have 4 conference home games and 5 conference away game and with the 2 buy games every school still has 7 home dates.

Nothing needs to change beyond that. Texas can use their two buy games to play in state foes and they will have their 7 home games, A&M on away years, and the 2 buy games to give them at worst 9 games in the state of Texas a year and possibly 10. They can still work a home and home with the P OOC game with anyone they wish which is essentially the business model they run now.

By doing this Texas moves from 5 P teams within their state plus OU and OSU to 2 P teams with SEC branding within their state and only OU with SEC branding competing with them for recruits. This will revive Texas football faster than anything else they could do.

These moves should also help to revitalize Arkansas and Missouri and the relationship only enhances L.S.U. because it helps to get Alabama distanced a bit from Louisiana recruits.

That's the basic rationale for Texas to gravitate to the SEC. However, Texas may still be holding onto a vision of a utopian structure whereby Texas dominates politically, economically, and athletically, and their conference brethren are appropriately prominent, but are subservient to, and enabling of, UT's interests. The B12 still has that model to a degree, but it is fragile. It is delusional that Texas can carry such a framework into any of the other P4 conferences as they are currently constituted.

All conferences have schools with disproportional power. We know who they are. However, both Notre Dame and Texas insist on special treatment. Texas is fine with conference football, but shared equity in control hasn't been their operational style. For Notre Dame, it's to be enabled for keeping football independence, while having their other sports accommodated and flourishing in an upper tier conference of prestige.

The SEC is the best conference for Texas. Creating a new conference whereby Texas picks 9 to 11 other members with by-laws and financial conditions dictated by Texas, is not going to happen. The B12 is the closest thing they have for that. If OU, and/or Kansas leave, it tumbles or becomes a shell of it's former self. Basically, another round of non-UT defections leaves the big fish with a puddle instead of a small pond.


.
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2020 11:09 AM by OdinFrigg.)
01-15-2020 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #229
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-02-2020 02:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 12:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

1. The addition of either of them locks the SEC into a dead heat with the Big 10 for the top slot in revenue.

2. The addition of both locks us into the superior position for revenue for the foreseeable future.

3. The addition of Texas and Oklahoma gives the SEC divisions symmetry. The RRR in the West and the Iron Bowl in the East become two of the premier events TV wise of the year. And since Auburn and Alabama would move East and Missouri would move West the resulting divisions would enable the dropping of the protected annual rivals.

Then you play 7 division games 2 games that rotate annually against the other division and you rotate through all 15 of the other schools every 4 years. You schedule 1 OOC P game and make sure it syncs up as a home game when you are on the 4 home conference game year and your two buy games give you 7 home tickets every year.

So expanding with those two schools gives us an opportunity to make divisional play more local, to balance the divisions, and to cement our advantages moving forward.

That's why you make the move. And the pair of them actually add ~5 million more to the annual payouts in content value and they boost our T3 network as well.

I guess what I'm saying is at only 5 million more per school I'm not sure we haven't reach a point of diminishing returns.

The league is already exceptionally difficult to win as it is, is it worth essentially locking out the bottom 8-10 teams in the league from ever winning? Hell, we have several schools (A&M, Ole Miss, UK, Vandy) that have never even won their division and others (SC, Miss St, Missouri, Arkansas) that have gone to Atlanta only 1-3 times.

Perhaps it's worth it to lock out the Big Ten from getting them but honestly if I was the president of SC (or Arkansas, Vandy, UK, Miss St, etc) I'd rather take 50 million and stand pat than take on those behemoths and get 55 million.

Heck nah. Arkansas would love to beat the ‘horns yearly again. I’m surprised the hogs haven’t tried sponsoring Texas’s application yet.
01-15-2020 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #230
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
I imagine the Big Ten's top target and dream is Notre Dame. Wouldn't be my choice as I think they lose what makes them special if they were join a conference. I think the conference will always find room for the Irish.

Having said that, partners are limited. I don't know if there is one partner that would make for a perfect 16 for Notre Dame but, with the theme of the thread, Notre Dame may not have a choice if they don't want to be so far behind in money. I know Texas and Notre Dame have a mutual fling of sorts for each other but I don't see Texas joining the Big Ten without another Texas school. I don't know if North Carolina can be pried away without another ACC school. Maybe Syracuse fits the bill to pair with Notre Dame for maximum New York saturation but I don't know if they pull enough weight.

Short of Notre Dame coming alone after conference championships get deregulated, I think the SEC and Big Ten split Texas and Oklahoma. Texas has former friends (or frienemies) in the SEC so that's a natural fit with the same for Oklahoma in the Big Ten. I think Kansas is a perfect side piece for the SEC as they are nonthreatening in football, add one of the best basketball programs to a conference needing another top flight program, and make Missouri feel way more comfortable. Of course politics may dictate Texas Tech with Texas.

Oklahoma to the Big Ten adds credibility to the western football division and a potential foothold into better recruiting areas needed for a northern conference. It worries me that Oklahoma may die on the vine away from Texas but they are a national brand (for now) that shouldn't ever stop being relevant. Kansas is a popular pick to pair with OU but I may like a dark horse in Colorado better. The Big Ten has a ton of alumni in Denver and adding Colorado would be more beneficial to Nebraska who needs to get back to being themselves. Colorado serves as a potential PAC 12 bridge but those schools may get left in the dust financially. If Kansas and Colorado don't pair with Oklahoma, I would stop at 15 and hold for Notre Dame while waiting for the championship game deregulation to pass. No need to add someone just for the sake of it.
01-15-2020 07:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #231
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-15-2020 07:15 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I imagine the Big Ten's top target and dream is Notre Dame. Wouldn't be my choice as I think they lose what makes them special if they were join a conference. I think the conference will always find room for the Irish.

Having said that, partners are limited. I don't know if there is one partner that would make for a perfect 16 for Notre Dame but, with the theme of the thread, Notre Dame may not have a choice if they don't want to be so far behind in money. I know Texas and Notre Dame have a mutual fling of sorts for each other but I don't see Texas joining the Big Ten without another Texas school. I don't know if North Carolina can be pried away without another ACC school. Maybe Syracuse fits the bill to pair with Notre Dame for maximum New York saturation but I don't know if they pull enough weight.

Short of Notre Dame coming alone after conference championships get deregulated, I think the SEC and Big Ten split Texas and Oklahoma. Texas has former friends (or frienemies) in the SEC so that's a natural fit with the same for Oklahoma in the Big Ten. I think Kansas is a perfect side piece for the SEC as they are nonthreatening in football, add one of the best basketball programs to a conference needing another top flight program, and make Missouri feel way more comfortable. Of course politics may dictate Texas Tech with Texas.

Oklahoma to the Big Ten adds credibility to the western football division and a potential foothold into better recruiting areas needed for a northern conference. It worries me that Oklahoma may die on the vine away from Texas but they are a national brand (for now) that shouldn't ever stop being relevant. Kansas is a popular pick to pair with OU but I may like a dark horse in Colorado better. The Big Ten has a ton of alumni in Denver and adding Colorado would be more beneficial to Nebraska who needs to get back to being themselves. Colorado serves as a potential PAC 12 bridge but those schools may get left in the dust financially. If Kansas and Colorado don't pair with Oklahoma, I would stop at 15 and hold for Notre Dame while waiting for the championship game deregulation to pass. No need to add someone just for the sake of it.

What you suggest makes for sound business if we get the requirement for two divisions dropped. Otherwise it will be a pair.

Personally I think the ideal pairing for the Big 10 would be Oklahoma would be Notre Dame and if Texas does head to the SEC, especially with a Kansas as their travel companion, there is no school left that can add to the ACC's value. And quite frankly there is no school in the ACC with the metrics to add to the bottom line of a 65 million dollar plus payout, and it's likely that both the SEC and Big 10 go well above that mark.

I don't think either of us will go above 16, and if we can get away with it 15 makes more sense.

Now as to OU losing potency in the Big 10, that doesn't have to happen if OU keeps the RRR and plays games with T.C.U., S.M.U. for their OOC buy games. DFW is what is important to the Sooners. They can play Texas there and rotate T.C.U. and S.M.U. and do just fine.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2020 06:55 PM by JRsec.)
01-15-2020 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #232
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
Fifteen could work if the divisions rule are changed. Let each conference figure how they'll determine their conference champion. In the end, if multiple conferences went to 15, I expect the models will look very similar. My view, going to 16 is plenty and that could be capped.

Fifteen could give the SEC more flexible, and a few more very interesting, matchups.

As others have reiterated above, who may be added has to be a commodity of undisputed net value. .
01-16-2020 06:43 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: #233
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
I've never liked the idea of 15, myself.

Under the right circumstances, you can probably make more money, but you also box yourself in when it comes to scheduling. An even number is really best.

Logistically speaking, you'll have more options available to you as far as when games can be scheduled. Perhaps the biggest gain there is the ability for your schools to be more flexible with non-conference scheduling. After all, the windows for non-conference games are already tight.

If you have 15 then at least one school has to be off in any given week...no exceptions. That sort of inflexibility trickles itself down the schedule and makes other endeavors a little harder as well.

8 x 15 = 120 games. Notice, however that 9 x 15 = 135. In other words, you could never play an odd number of conference games. The math simply wouldn't add up. Not that I expect the SEC to move to 9 anytime soon, but it's just an example of the curtailing of options an odd number of league members gives you.
01-16-2020 11:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #234
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-16-2020 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've never liked the idea of 15, myself.

Under the right circumstances, you can probably make more money, but you also box yourself in when it comes to scheduling. An even number is really best.

Logistically speaking, you'll have more options available to you as far as when games can be scheduled. Perhaps the biggest gain there is the ability for your schools to be more flexible with non-conference scheduling. After all, the windows for non-conference games are already tight.

If you have 15 then at least one school has to be off in any given week...no exceptions. That sort of inflexibility trickles itself down the schedule and makes other endeavors a little harder as well.

8 x 15 = 120 games. Notice, however that 9 x 15 = 135. In other words, you could never play an odd number of conference games. The math simply wouldn't add up. Not that I expect the SEC to move to 9 anytime soon, but it's just an example of the curtailing of options an odd number of league members gives you.

Good points. And the SEC has enough solid brands that if we add another then their having a partner just multiplies the T2 opportunities to show a brand against a mid tier team.
01-16-2020 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #235
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

Why expand? ESPN/ABC is going to pay $300M/yr to get the Tier I rights. Currently during that golden 3:30PM ET time slot, the only other SEC game on is usually the least interesting game that day on the SEC Network. That means the majority of SEC fans are watching or closely following that Tier I Game. If a fan base follows a team, it will also follow other games in that conference. Adding schools with huge fan bases or huge followings will be where to look when pondering expansion candidates.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulanno...rship.html

According to last year’s regular season, Oklahoma was the 6th most watched school last season.
01-17-2020 03:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,791
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #236
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-16-2020 11:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2020 11:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've never liked the idea of 15, myself.

Under the right circumstances, you can probably make more money, but you also box yourself in when it comes to scheduling. An even number is really best.

Logistically speaking, you'll have more options available to you as far as when games can be scheduled. Perhaps the biggest gain there is the ability for your schools to be more flexible with non-conference scheduling. After all, the windows for non-conference games are already tight.

If you have 15 then at least one school has to be off in any given week...no exceptions. That sort of inflexibility trickles itself down the schedule and makes other endeavors a little harder as well.

8 x 15 = 120 games. Notice, however that 9 x 15 = 135. In other words, you could never play an odd number of conference games. The math simply wouldn't add up. Not that I expect the SEC to move to 9 anytime soon, but it's just an example of the curtailing of options an odd number of league members gives you.

Good points. And the SEC has enough solid brands that if we add another then their having a partner just multiplies the T2 opportunities to show a brand against a mid tier team.

Yes, it can be tricky math needing clever scheduling with the timing of OOC's involved. Going to 9 conference games would help for certain aspects. The biggest problem would be more centralized scheduling by, I assume, the SEC office. Think they fuss now about who plays who, it would get more combative with the posturing.

The SEC uses geography to decide their divisions with Mizzou being the sole oddity. Adding more schools from the west (B12), certainly suggests Auburn and/or Alabama go to the east division. But one Alabama school and one Mississippi school could be moved in a modified version. Vanderbilt moving to the west wouldn't be an improvement for Vandy's circumstances. I am talking about 16 teams here.

The ACC model sorta works for their situation because the stronger fb schools are mostly in the south.

Frankly, I'd rather see a standard 16 team cap for power conferences. No more GoRs. Moving schools pay reasonable, actual costs for transition with an 18 to 24 month formal notice.

Basically we are talking about a B12 window in a few years. And we don't know yet how that is going to unfold. And the ACC window is many years off as established now. All that is way too bureaucratic, inflexible, and expensive, to make grander positive changes well beyond the SEC.
01-17-2020 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #237
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-17-2020 03:51 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

Why expand? ESPN/ABC is going to pay $300M/yr to get the Tier I rights. Currently during that golden 3:30PM ET time slot, the only other SEC game on is usually the least interesting game that day on the SEC Network. That means the majority of SEC fans are watching or closely following that Tier I Game. If a fan base follows a team, it will also follow other games in that conference. Adding schools with huge fan bases or huge followings will be where to look when pondering expansion candidates.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulanno...rship.html

According to last year’s regular season, Oklahoma was the 6th most watched school last season.

I guess what I'm trying to say is how much money do those schools realistically add to the bottom line per team? Is, for instance, and extra $2-5 million per year worth it to make the league significantly harder to win? Especially when schools are already making $50+ million a year. At that point you're talking a less than 10% increase in money when you have enough to easily meet all of your needs.

At the end of the day there is something to be said for smaller and easier conferences too. The last time a team outside of the "big 6" won the SEC was Kentucky in 1976. Prior to that it was Ole Miss in the segregated era. Of the 56 teams that have played in Atlanta only 7 of those spots have been from outside of the Big 6 and 4 schools have never been at all.

I'm just saying, if you're outside of the club (which is a majority of the league) it's something to consider.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2020 01:28 PM by Gamecock.)
01-17-2020 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #238
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-17-2020 01:25 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(01-17-2020 03:51 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-30-2019 09:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Just taking a step back, if you're the SEC what incentive is there to expand at this point? If the new deal starts causing payouts to exceed 50 million per school then does Oklahoma and Texas really move the meter much at that point? Is 2-4 million more per year really worth bringing in two blue blood schools that will make a very tough conference even that much more difficult?

At this point I think it's more likely that we take the huge raise and stand pat.

Why expand? ESPN/ABC is going to pay $300M/yr to get the Tier I rights. Currently during that golden 3:30PM ET time slot, the only other SEC game on is usually the least interesting game that day on the SEC Network. That means the majority of SEC fans are watching or closely following that Tier I Game. If a fan base follows a team, it will also follow other games in that conference. Adding schools with huge fan bases or huge followings will be where to look when pondering expansion candidates.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.awfulanno...rship.html

According to last year’s regular season, Oklahoma was the 6th most watched school last season.

I guess what I'm trying to say is how much money do those schools realistically add to the bottom line per team? Is, for instance, and extra $2-5 million per year worth it to make the league significantly harder to win? Especially when schools are already making $50+ million a year. At that point you're talking a less than 10% increase in money when you have enough to easily meet all of your needs.

At the end of the day there is something to be said for smaller and easier conferences too. The last time a team outside of the "big 6" won the SEC was Kentucky in 1976. Prior to that it was Ole Miss in the segregated era. Of the 56 teams that have played in Atlanta only 7 of those spots have been from outside of the Big 6 and 4 schools have never been at all.

I'm just saying, if you're outside of the club (which is a majority of the league) it's something to consider.

We don't play to lose Gamecock. And we already have the toughest conference, we aren't a league. If it profits the SEC presidents will go for it. Why? We've won the most national championships in the last 20 years by a wide margin because we are a tough conference. If you want a conference that's easier to compete in then leave. But I doubt seriously that your president would vote to do that because he's about to be making double what the ACC gets. Add OU and UT to it and the raise would be at least 5 million more per school.

Would it be tougher? Yes. But that's what you've been getting paid handsomely for already.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2020 01:40 PM by JRsec.)
01-17-2020 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 617
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #239
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
We don't play to lose Gamecock. And we already have the toughest conference, we aren't a league. If it profits the SEC presidents will go for it. Why? We've won the most national championships in the last 20 years by a wide margin because we are a tough conference. If you want a conference that's easier to compete in then leave. But I doubt seriously that your president would vote to do that because he's about to be making double what the ACC gets. Add OU and UT to it and the raise would be at least 5 million more per school.

Would it be tougher? Yes. But that's what you've been getting paid handsomely for already.
[/quote]

On one hand I sometimes understand the initial impulse to make either the SEC or B1G so lopsided in income when a person is a fan of one of those leagues and to beat their chest about the revenues but at some point success on the field matters.

The other part is this would create a downward spiral of national viewership. Yes, certain areas struggle in this currently namely the west coast but instead of trying to accelerate that process it would seem to be a lot smarter for the sport to try and begin growing again in those weaker areas or the sport is going to become as regionalized as NASCAR.

When networks find live sports the most valuable commodity why try and condense your product versus growing the sport nationally? It doesn't make sense. You can't over develop the SEC & B1G and leave everyone else behind competitively and financially if you want a successful long term sport.
01-21-2020 01:42 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: #240
RE: Time, Monetary Disparity, Pressure, and No Brokering Equals Unexpected Consequences
(01-21-2020 01:42 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  We don't play to lose Gamecock. And we already have the toughest conference, we aren't a league. If it profits the SEC presidents will go for it. Why? We've won the most national championships in the last 20 years by a wide margin because we are a tough conference. If you want a conference that's easier to compete in then leave. But I doubt seriously that your president would vote to do that because he's about to be making double what the ACC gets. Add OU and UT to it and the raise would be at least 5 million more per school.

Would it be tougher? Yes. But that's what you've been getting paid handsomely for already.

On one hand I sometimes understand the initial impulse to make either the SEC or B1G so lopsided in income when a person is a fan of one of those leagues and to beat their chest about the revenues but at some point success on the field matters.

The other part is this would create a downward spiral of national viewership. Yes, certain areas struggle in this currently namely the west coast but instead of trying to accelerate that process it would seem to be a lot smarter for the sport to try and begin growing again in those weaker areas or the sport is going to become as regionalized as NASCAR.

When networks find live sports the most valuable commodity why try and condense your product versus growing the sport nationally? It doesn't make sense. You can't over develop the SEC & B1G and leave everyone else behind competitively and financially if you want a successful long term sport.
[/quote]

I agree with your sentiment, ie that growing the sport is a long term concern. However, I think it also works in reverse: If, in particular, the B1G expands west, then those midwest eyes are going to become more and more interested in western football.

The SEC less so because our base really is the south, and we aren't really going to expand very far north or west.
01-21-2020 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 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.