The problem is that in college football there is no unifying force and the is always the impetus to screw your rival. How do you get the SEC to sign on to this? The reality is that the P5 largely has what it wanted with autonomy and cost of attendance. The only people complaining are us nuts on message boards. Short of an act of congress or an NFL sized TV contract how do you get anyone to agree to this?

(01-18-2016 08:25 PM)panama Wrote:  The problem is that in college football there is no unifying force and the is always the impetus to screw your rival. How do you get the SEC to sign on to this? The reality is that the P5 largely has what it wanted with autonomy and cost of attendance. The only people complaining are us nuts on message boards. Short of an act of congress or an NFL sized TV contract how do you get anyone to agree to this?

Do you guys not offer COA?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The point is that the P5 had a list of items that they wanted and they got them all

(01-18-2016 08:25 PM)panama Wrote:  The problem is that in college football there is no unifying force and the is always the impetus to screw your rival. How do you get the SEC to sign on to this? The reality is that the P5 largely has what it wanted with autonomy and cost of attendance. The only people complaining are us nuts on message boards. Short of an act of congress or an NFL sized TV contract how do you get anyone to agree to this?

Precisely because it benefits everybody. More gate revenue. More TV revenue. Drastically less scheduling pain. The effective death of OOC games and replacement with a FCS pre-season game controls cost while still appeasing political interests that demand the wealth get spread around. Since nobody is getting screwed, you side step all the political/legal crap altogether.

And there is less of an impetus to screw your rival than you might think. A HUGE chunk of donations to an athletic department are tied in with big rivalry games. This is why Vince Dooley while he was AD at UGAg in the mid 70's offered to sponsor GT's readmission into the SEC. Bear Bryant and Dodd hadn't spoken since Bear broke his word on the vote on scholarships by the SEC, and Bryant also wanted to bury the hatchet. Dodd was still AD at GT, and said the Mississippi schools wouldn't allow it to happen (GT refused to play them for decades) and so on Dodd's no that was that. GT in the 70's was in shambles and considering dropping I-A football altogether. It would have made zero positive impact to the SEC itself to add GT at the time, but the votes were probably there to add them back in. There is more mutual dependence in big rivalries than you might think there is.

(01-18-2016 08:35 PM)panama Wrote:  The point is that the P5 had a list of items that they wanted and they got them all

I disagree. The NCAA pretty much met the P5 half way to avoid them picking up their ball and going home and turning the NCAA into the NAIA 2.0.

If you truly gave the P5 a magic wand, the NCAA rule book and regulatory regime would get a TOTAL overhaul. There would likely be transfer rule changes as well. And drastic recruiting rule changes. There'd be at least a contingent within the P5 wanting to put sanity into the academic rules, particularly regarding electives, progress toward degree, and weighting against curriculum difficulty. According to the NCAA a 1.99 in nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech is academically ineligible and a deficient student. But a 2.01 in interdisciplinary studies at Ole Miss is just fine -- great work student athlete! And I betcha if you could have Alabama and Ohio State and Texas and their ilk leave the room for a moment, everybody else would want to institute a facilities equivalent of a salary cap. Because that is THE biggest cost driver in football right now, and it's become a total farce to where each school is building a giant Dave & Busters complex just for the football players. And the joke is -- if they go to a school with actual academics and a coaching staff worth a toot -- THEY WON'T HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND THERE ANYWAY!

So no -- I reject your assertion that the P5 is getting whatever it wants.

GTS I suggest GT build a Dave and Busters because the "student athlete" is being told as we speak GT has no Dave and Busters and that you have to get a 2.0 in nuclear engineering. A lot of what you say makes sense which is why it has not happened and will not happen.

(01-18-2016 08:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 08:35 PM)panama Wrote:  The point is that the P5 had a list of items that they wanted and they got them all

I disagree. The NCAA pretty much met the P5 half way to avoid them picking up their ball and going home and turning the NCAA into the NAIA 2.0.

If you truly gave the P5 a magic wand, the NCAA rule book and regulatory regime would get a TOTAL overhaul. There would likely be transfer rule changes as well. And drastic recruiting rule changes. There'd be at least a contingent within the P5 wanting to put sanity into the academic rules, particularly regarding electives, progress toward degree, and weighting against curriculum difficulty. According to the NCAA a 1.99 in nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech is academically ineligible and a deficient student. But a 2.01 in interdisciplinary studies at Ole Miss is just fine -- great work student athlete! And I betcha if you could have Alabama and Ohio State and Texas and their ilk leave the room for a moment, everybody else would want to institute a facilities equivalent of a salary cap. Because that is THE biggest cost driver in football right now, and it's become a total farce to where each school is building a giant Dave & Busters complex just for the football players. And the joke is -- if they go to a school with actual academics and a coaching staff worth a toot -- THEY WON'T HAVE THE TIME TO SPEND THERE ANYWAY!

So no -- I reject your assertion that the P5 is getting whatever it wants.

While football teams enjoy indoor climate controlled practices and 5 star field house hospitals and rehab centers their classmates are often relegated to much less for they're efforts. Who would object to making these monolithic facilities available to all student athletes? Some regulation here would be welcomed by me.

(01-18-2016 08:42 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 08:25 PM)panama Wrote:  The problem is that in college football there is no unifying force and the is always the impetus to screw your rival. How do you get the SEC to sign on to this? The reality is that the P5 largely has what it wanted with autonomy and cost of attendance. The only people complaining are us nuts on message boards. Short of an act of congress or an NFL sized TV contract how do you get anyone to agree to this?

Precisely because it benefits everybody. More gate revenue. More TV revenue. Drastically less scheduling pain. The effective death of OOC games and replacement with a FCS pre-season game controls cost while still appeasing political interests that demand the wealth get spread around. Since nobody is getting screwed, you side step all the political/legal crap altogether.

And there is less of an impetus to screw your rival than you might think. A HUGE chunk of donations to an athletic department are tied in with big rivalry games. This is why Vince Dooley while he was AD at UGAg in the mid 70's offered to sponsor GT's readmission into the SEC. Bear Bryant and Dodd hadn't spoken since Bear broke his word on the vote on scholarships by the SEC, and Bryant also wanted to bury the hatchet. Dodd was still AD at GT, and said the Mississippi schools wouldn't allow it to happen (GT refused to play them for decades) and so on Dodd's no that was that. GT in the 70's was in shambles and considering dropping I-A football altogether. It would have made zero positive impact to the SEC itself to add GT at the time, but the votes were probably there to add them back in. There is more mutual dependence in big rivalries than you might think there is.

Dooley wasn't AD at uga in the mid 70s. Rivalries are important, but this entire plan is doomed. Too many people of power, and those who feel important because of donating so much in support of them, world have to give up power and control. And .. Traditions would be shattered. Imop, never gonna happen.

(01-18-2016 11:32 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:49 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Betcha a shinny nickle that the SEC doesn't take two teams that far out of the footprint that represent so few people. Just doesn't make dollars for the SEC Network - so it doesn't make sense, to me.

The States of NC and Virginia are missing from the SEC footprint if they expand.

The okie's one real draw would be the number of viewers in big, highly populated Texas markets. But the SEC Network already has Texas anyway.
And unless there carriage is improved in that state by that the addition of those two, I'd count them out.

I think you VASTLY underestimate the draw of OU in the Dallas area, and north Texas in general, as well as their home state and surrounding areas.

Plus, their history as one of the best teams in the nation has given them "t-shirt fans" across the nation.

OU brings PLENTY of people to the table to make it worthwhile for the SEC to grab them.

Now, will they? Hell, I gave up on trying to predict realignment long ago... But it won't be for lack of value, if they don't.

Pretty sure those Texas areas all already have the SEC network from every provider. The state has an sec team, therefore carriage requirements already make the network mandatory to basic subscriptions and Max price. There is no major gain here in monthly subscription revenue by adding teams in the same state. Obviously they aren't in the same state so this is a different animal. Maybe the ratings would bei increased enough in those big Texas markets to justify it. The entire state of Oklahoma however doesn't come close to justifying or equaling even one of the available much higher populated states. Very hard to quantify Oklahoma's following around the country and impossible to enforce mandatory cartage on basic package outside of home SEC states. Non SEC states are allowed to sports tier the network at wholesale cost of less than twenty cents per household versus $1.40 in SEC states. How much advertising does it take to offset that kind of MONTHLY guaranteed cash flow? Might raise cartage and availability in non SEC states? Imop, there are too many birds in the bushes with adding those two when the SEC Network could add a couple of guaranteed big birds in the hand with VT and. NC State.

No question that those two programs have big followings and they are good competitors. But the SEC is the least needy of all conferences for competitiveness and respect. With such a small number of households in state and at the cost of adding two teams? Not enough sugar for a dime is what mama would say.

(01-19-2016 01:05 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Dooley wasn't AD at uga in the mid 70s. Rivalries are important, but this entire plan is doomed. Too many people of power, and those who feel important because of donating so much in support of them, world have to give up power and control. And .. Traditions would be shattered. Imop, never gonna happen.

Perhaps it was '79-'80 or so? Basically, Curry was HC at GT, Dooley was AD at UGAg, and Dodd, if he wasn't AD still, still had ultimate say in the matter on GT's side, or at least a huge influence.

(01-15-2016 02:51 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/jo...37f83.html

Interview with the Oklahoma President. OU is going to get B12 expansion plus blow up the Longhorn Network or they're going to look for a better situation. He's openly flirting with the Big Ten here.

This sounds like sour grapes over the expansion issue by Boren.

No reason to expand until the B12 contracts are open sesame.

(01-18-2016 11:32 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:49 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Betcha a shinny nickle that the SEC doesn't take two teams that far out of the footprint that represent so few people. Just doesn't make dollars for the SEC Network - so it doesn't make sense, to me.

The States of NC and Virginia are missing from the SEC footprint if they expand.

The okie's one real draw would be the number of viewers in big, highly populated Texas markets. But the SEC Network already has Texas anyway.
And unless there carriage is improved in that state by that the addition of those two, I'd count them out.

I think you VASTLY underestimate the draw of OU in the Dallas area, and north Texas in general, as well as their home state and surrounding areas.

Plus, their history as one of the best teams in the nation has given them "t-shirt fans" across the nation.

OU brings PLENTY of people to the table to make it worthwhile for the SEC to grab them.

Now, will they? Hell, I gave up on trying to predict realignment long ago... But it won't be for lack of value, if they don't.

I think OU brings plenty (but not enough to bring OK State with them) and eventually ends up in the B1G with Kansas. The SEC's next move is likely two teams in the east with Missouri moving west. My guess is Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

(01-19-2016 02:58 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 11:32 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:49 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Betcha a shinny nickle that the SEC doesn't take two teams that far out of the footprint that represent so few people. Just doesn't make dollars for the SEC Network - so it doesn't make sense, to me.

The States of NC and Virginia are missing from the SEC footprint if they expand.

The okie's one real draw would be the number of viewers in big, highly populated Texas markets. But the SEC Network already has Texas anyway.
And unless there carriage is improved in that state by that the addition of those two, I'd count them out.

I think you VASTLY underestimate the draw of OU in the Dallas area, and north Texas in general, as well as their home state and surrounding areas.

Plus, their history as one of the best teams in the nation has given them "t-shirt fans" across the nation.

OU brings PLENTY of people to the table to make it worthwhile for the SEC to grab them.

Now, will they? Hell, I gave up on trying to predict realignment long ago... But it won't be for lack of value, if they don't.

I think OU brings plenty (but not enough to bring OK State with them) and eventually ends up in the B1G with Kansas. The SEC's next move is likely two teams in the east with Missouri moving west. My guess is Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

You do realize that OU and OSU are joined at the hip right? They will not be separated ever.

(01-19-2016 02:58 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  I think OU brings plenty (but not enough to bring OK State with them) and eventually ends up in the B1G with Kansas. The SEC's next move is likely two teams in the east with Missouri moving west. My guess is Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

Let em be clear:

OU on it's own to SEC? Profitable for SEC
OSU on it's own to SEC? Not profitable for SEC
OU/OSU to SEC? Still profitable for SEC

It's not really about increasing number of members who subscribe to watch the games, but rather the ratings increase that will come with those two teams. That will increase ratings, and therefore make the television contract more profitable.

(01-19-2016 03:44 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:58 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  I think OU brings plenty (but not enough to bring OK State with them) and eventually ends up in the B1G with Kansas. The SEC's next move is likely two teams in the east with Missouri moving west. My guess is Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

Let em be clear:

OU on it's own to SEC? Profitable for SEC
OSU on it's own to SEC? Not profitable for SEC
OU/OSU to SEC? Still profitable for SEC

It's not really about increasing number of members who subscribe to watch the games, but rather the ratings increase that will come with those two teams. That will increase ratings, and therefore make the television contract more profitable.

OU/OSU to the SEC? Not profitable enough for the SEC. That's the distinction that has to be made.

(01-19-2016 03:20 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:58 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 11:32 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:49 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Betcha a shinny nickle that the SEC doesn't take two teams that far out of the footprint that represent so few people. Just doesn't make dollars for the SEC Network - so it doesn't make sense, to me.

The States of NC and Virginia are missing from the SEC footprint if they expand.

The okie's one real draw would be the number of viewers in big, highly populated Texas markets. But the SEC Network already has Texas anyway.
And unless there carriage is improved in that state by that the addition of those two, I'd count them out.

I think you VASTLY underestimate the draw of OU in the Dallas area, and north Texas in general, as well as their home state and surrounding areas.

Plus, their history as one of the best teams in the nation has given them "t-shirt fans" across the nation.

OU brings PLENTY of people to the table to make it worthwhile for the SEC to grab them.

Now, will they? Hell, I gave up on trying to predict realignment long ago... But it won't be for lack of value, if they don't.

I think OU brings plenty (but not enough to bring OK State with them) and eventually ends up in the B1G with Kansas. The SEC's next move is likely two teams in the east with Missouri moving west. My guess is Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

You do realize that OU and OSU are joined at the hip right? They will not be separated ever.

That's what everybody said about Texas and Texas A&M. It's true until it isn't.

(01-19-2016 04:52 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 03:20 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 02:58 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 11:32 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:49 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Betcha a shinny nickle that the SEC doesn't take two teams that far out of the footprint that represent so few people. Just doesn't make dollars for the SEC Network - so it doesn't make sense, to me.

The States of NC and Virginia are missing from the SEC footprint if they expand.

The okie's one real draw would be the number of viewers in big, highly populated Texas markets. But the SEC Network already has Texas anyway.
And unless there carriage is improved in that state by that the addition of those two, I'd count them out.

I think you VASTLY underestimate the draw of OU in the Dallas area, and north Texas in general, as well as their home state and surrounding areas.

Plus, their history as one of the best teams in the nation has given them "t-shirt fans" across the nation.

OU brings PLENTY of people to the table to make it worthwhile for the SEC to grab them.

Now, will they? Hell, I gave up on trying to predict realignment long ago... But it won't be for lack of value, if they don't.

I think OU brings plenty (but not enough to bring OK State with them) and eventually ends up in the B1G with Kansas. The SEC's next move is likely two teams in the east with Missouri moving west. My guess is Virginia Tech and West Virginia.

You do realize that OU and OSU are joined at the hip right? They will not be separated ever.

That's what everybody said about Texas and Texas A&M. It's true until it isn't.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but the Texas/TAMU relationship is much different than OU/OSU. I personally don't see them moving without each other.

WVU came out today also in favor of Big 12 Expansion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-19-2016 04:51 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  OU/OSU to the SEC? Not profitable enough for the SEC. That's the distinction that has to be made.

Not sure if it will ever be definitively decided (unless OU/OSU actually moves to the SEC), but I wholly disagree with that sentiment.

I think they are profitable enough to raise the payout to each SEC by a factor large enough to more than cover expenses involved in adding them.

(01-15-2016 11:30 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:58 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  Ultimately, does the Power5 become the Power4 ? Makes more since for a playoff.

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

Oh heck no. Ask the AAC. It's going to go to the P6. We're already the G4 and they're the tweeners.

They're such butts. Much arrogance. We G4'ers gotta stick together!