http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-...-sec-east/

Quote:That’s big news on two levels.

First, it reveals that Malzahn, who should be pretty plugged into the day-to-day conversations of the league’s higher-ups, believe realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings.

Second, it shows that Auburn may be a willing participant if a realignment becomes a reality.

"Realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings." Does that mean shuffling what we currently have or what we might add?

More info in the link.

(04-13-2016 07:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-...-sec-east/

Quote:That’s big news on two levels.

First, it reveals that Malzahn, who should be pretty plugged into the day-to-day conversations of the league’s higher-ups, believe realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings.

Second, it shows that Auburn may be a willing participant if a realignment becomes a reality.

"Realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings." Does that mean shuffling what we currently have or what we might add?

More info in the link.

Gus is just echoing what our trustees and alumni desire. For decades of my life we played Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech and Mississippi State every year in addition to Alabama. We suffered some down years because of the realignment in '91. 2/3rds of our recruiting class once came from Southeast Alabama, the Florida Panhandle over to Jacksonville and across South Georgia. And we routinely picked up commits from middle & eastern Tennessee.

No longer playing Eastern teams killed our recruiting in those areas. It was tough to build new bridges to the West. Bama knew this.

But understand this. If we are thinking of a move East that means any expansion would be coming from the West IMO.

(04-13-2016 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-...-sec-east/

Quote:That’s big news on two levels.

First, it reveals that Malzahn, who should be pretty plugged into the day-to-day conversations of the league’s higher-ups, believe realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings.

Second, it shows that Auburn may be a willing participant if a realignment becomes a reality.

"Realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings." Does that mean shuffling what we currently have or what we might add?

More info in the link.

Gus is just echoing what our trustees and alumni desire. For decades of my life we played Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech and Mississippi State every year in addition to Alabama. We suffered some down years because of the realignment in '91. 2/3rds of our recruiting class once came from Southeast Alabama, the Florida Panhandle over to Jacksonville and across South Georgia. And we routinely picked up commits from middle & eastern Tennessee.

No longer playing Eastern teams killed our recruiting in those areas. It was tough to build new bridges to the West. Bama knew this.

But understand this. If we are thinking of a move East that means any expansion would be coming from the West IMO.

You could get away with one eastern and one western addition and still move Auburn to the East. Flexibility comes with the two central time zone schools playing in the East; Missouri and Vanderbilt. The point that needs to be examined is a 9 CCG. That would allow the flexibility to preserve rivalries regardless if we stay at 14 or move to 16 members.

(04-13-2016 09:09 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-...-sec-east/

Quote:That’s big news on two levels.

First, it reveals that Malzahn, who should be pretty plugged into the day-to-day conversations of the league’s higher-ups, believe realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings.

Second, it shows that Auburn may be a willing participant if a realignment becomes a reality.

"Realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings." Does that mean shuffling what we currently have or what we might add?

More info in the link.

Gus is just echoing what our trustees and alumni desire. For decades of my life we played Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech and Mississippi State every year in addition to Alabama. We suffered some down years because of the realignment in '91. 2/3rds of our recruiting class once came from Southeast Alabama, the Florida Panhandle over to Jacksonville and across South Georgia. And we routinely picked up commits from middle & eastern Tennessee.

No longer playing Eastern teams killed our recruiting in those areas. It was tough to build new bridges to the West. Bama knew this.

But understand this. If we are thinking of a move East that means any expansion would be coming from the West IMO.

You could get away with one eastern and one western addition and still move Auburn to the East. Flexibility comes with the two central time zone schools playing in the East; Missouri and Vanderbilt. The point that needs to be examined is a 9 CCG. That would allow the flexibility to preserve rivalries regardless if we stay at 14 or move to 16 members.

Oklahoma and Florida State could work. But personally I think Gus isn't telling the whole story. The only way Auburn moves East is if Bama goes too. That means two to the West. But, Florida State could go either way.

(04-13-2016 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 09:09 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-...-sec-east/

Quote:That’s big news on two levels.

First, it reveals that Malzahn, who should be pretty plugged into the day-to-day conversations of the league’s higher-ups, believe realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings.

Second, it shows that Auburn may be a willing participant if a realignment becomes a reality.

"Realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings." Does that mean shuffling what we currently have or what we might add?

More info in the link.

Gus is just echoing what our trustees and alumni desire. For decades of my life we played Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech and Mississippi State every year in addition to Alabama. We suffered some down years because of the realignment in '91. 2/3rds of our recruiting class once came from Southeast Alabama, the Florida Panhandle over to Jacksonville and across South Georgia. And we routinely picked up commits from middle & eastern Tennessee.

No longer playing Eastern teams killed our recruiting in those areas. It was tough to build new bridges to the West. Bama knew this.

But understand this. If we are thinking of a move East that means any expansion would be coming from the West IMO.

You could get away with one eastern and one western addition and still move Auburn to the East. Flexibility comes with the two central time zone schools playing in the East; Missouri and Vanderbilt. The point that needs to be examined is a 9 CCG. That would allow the flexibility to preserve rivalries regardless if we stay at 14 or move to 16 members.

Oklahoma and Florida State could work. But personally I think Gus isn't telling the whole story. The only way Auburn moves East is if Bama goes too. That means two to the West. But, Florida State could go either way.

If OU and FSU were added to the west, Auburn moved to the east, you would have divisions:
East: UF, Aub, UGA, USCe, Tenn, V, UK, Mizz
West: Ala, Ark, FSU, OU, Ole, MSU, LSU, A&M

Thanksgiving weekend would feature:
Three cross division rivals: AlavsAub, UFvsFSU, ArkvsMizz
Three inter division rivals: OlevsMSU, TennvsVandy, LSUvsA&M
Four non divison rivals: UGAvsGT, UKvsL'ville, USCevsClem, OUvsOSU

But, If OU had to have OSU....
East: UF, Aub, UGA, USCe, Tenn, V, UK, Mizz
West: Ala, Ark, OU, OSU, Ole, MSU, LSU, A&M

Thanksgiving weekend would feature:
Three cross division rivals: AlavsAub, ArkvsMizz,
Three inter division rivals: OlevsMSU, TennvsVandy, LSUvsA&M, OUvsOSU,
Four non divison rivals: UGAvsGT, UKvsL'ville, USCevsClem, UFvsFSU

The problem would be being able to play the other schools. Would need rotating pods with two permanent rivals.

Makes sense that it would be OU and OSU.

I was thinking the other day about the deal Texas tried to engineer in 2010 to send 6 schools to the PAC. Remember that this occurred before the GOR was signed or even thought up. Even then they were trying to find a home for all the little brothers. Of course, this was before TCU was in the Big 12 so they weren't a part of the discussion.

The PAC probably wasn't terribly thrilled with the idea of Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Nonetheless they were willing to take the deal as long as they could take Colorado, an AAU school and new market, in place of Baylor who they truly balked at. The PAC was so serious about it that they invited CU first in order to force UT's hand. The deal was stalled long enough for everything to fall apart.

So anyway, I think you will find that OU and UT are still interested in taking along the little brothers regardless of the implications it may or may not have on the GOR. In that scenario, I think taking OU and OSU is the best combo we can get. We've already got a presence in TX so taking 2 or maybe even 3 more TX schools is completely unnecessary. That and outside of UT, there is no school in TX that is of the caliber of OU or even OSU. OSU has really upped their game in recent years and I believe they are among the more valuable members of that league now. They are worth a spot.

West: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

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

(04-13-2016 09:09 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 08:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 07:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-...-sec-east/

Quote:That’s big news on two levels.

First, it reveals that Malzahn, who should be pretty plugged into the day-to-day conversations of the league’s higher-ups, believe realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings.

Second, it shows that Auburn may be a willing participant if a realignment becomes a reality.

"Realignment discussions are on the forecast for future meetings." Does that mean shuffling what we currently have or what we might add?

More info in the link.

Gus is just echoing what our trustees and alumni desire. For decades of my life we played Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech and Mississippi State every year in addition to Alabama. We suffered some down years because of the realignment in '91. 2/3rds of our recruiting class once came from Southeast Alabama, the Florida Panhandle over to Jacksonville and across South Georgia. And we routinely picked up commits from middle & eastern Tennessee.

No longer playing Eastern teams killed our recruiting in those areas. It was tough to build new bridges to the West. Bama knew this.

But understand this. If we are thinking of a move East that means any expansion would be coming from the West IMO.

You could get away with one eastern and one western addition and still move Auburn to the East. Flexibility comes with the two central time zone schools playing in the East; Missouri and Vanderbilt. The point that needs to be examined is a 9 CCG. That would allow the flexibility to preserve rivalries regardless if we stay at 14 or move to 16 members.

9 CG = 10 P5 games for all and 11 for most. PAC 12 said 9 game conference slate hurt them last season. It is an option but would be a tough choice.

I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

(04-14-2016 12:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

I think ultimately the SEC is going to have to decide which course to follow.

The SEC's strength over the last decade has been in the middle to bottom of the conference. We do well when our mid-level games do well, games like LSU v MSU.

How much value do you add if you have an OU v UA game but end up without AU v LSU, or MSU v UA, or AU v MSU? I've yet to see a real in depth look at weighing those alternatives.

Does adding another top run program and reshuffling the entire SEC deck actually serve the purpose of furthering the conference?

When you take a close look it becomes obvious that expanding to add OU or UT is actually a departure from the strategy that has served the SEC so well.

When it comes to academics a reliance on the AAU metric also is a departure from the SEC strategy of the past. The SEC has, more or less, taken the stance that AAU is a club--which it is--and one that does not actually comport with the overall missions of most of the SEC schools. Ole Miss' medical school is closed to out of state students for example. The SEC is less reliant on research dollars as a metric. Instead, most SEC schools have invested in attracting quality students which they have done well at.

There is real danger in adopting incongruent strategies simply because OU or UT look appetizing from a distance.

I personally feel that maximizing value with current members is going to serve the SEC far better than adopting a "take now" strategy to deny the Big10 some perceived advantage. The last 15 years of the SEC has perfectly demonstrated that. And, our additions here recently have shown the downside since we cant really integrate Mizzou without damaging the overall brand.

(04-14-2016 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

I think ultimately the SEC is going to have to decide which course to follow.

The SEC's strength over the last decade has been in the middle to bottom of the conference. We do well when our mid-level games do well, games like LSU v MSU.

How much value do you add if you have an OU v UA game but end up without AU v LSU, or MSU v UA, or AU v MSU? I've yet to see a real in depth look at weighing those alternatives.

Does adding another top run program and reshuffling the entire SEC deck actually serve the purpose of furthering the conference?

When you take a close look it becomes obvious that expanding to add OU or UT is actually a departure from the strategy that has served the SEC so well.

When it comes to academics a reliance on the AAU metric also is a departure from the SEC strategy of the past. The SEC has, more or less, taken the stance that AAU is a club--which it is--and one that does not actually comport with the overall missions of most of the SEC schools. Ole Miss' medical school is closed to out of state students for example. The SEC is less reliant on research dollars as a metric. Instead, most SEC schools have invested in attracting quality students which they have done well at.

There is real danger in adopting incongruent strategies simply because OU or UT look appetizing from a distance.

I personally feel that maximizing value with current members is going to serve the SEC far better than adopting a "take now" strategy to deny the Big10 some perceived advantage. The last 15 years of the SEC has perfectly demonstrated that. And, our additions here recently have shown the downside since we cant really integrate Mizzou without damaging the overall brand.

I don't disagree with your reasoning here H.O.D.. But I think what is driving the SEC right now is the desire to lock down Texas in case we have a shifting payout model. Having UT or OU gives us DFW in spades. I don't think we care so much about West Texas as we do the population centers. A&M gave us Houston.

OU fits right in the middle of the SEC academically. Yes they are a strong brand, but one that actually plays more at the level of L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida than it does at Alabama's level (though they do have that history). Florida State is the lock down on Florida and they are up when the Gators are down and down when the Gators are up and also fit into that same range as Auburn and Georgia.

When the footprint model dies we are going to faced with a model that rewards two things: Content and Market Saturation. The only two states the SEC doesn't own outright by that metric are Texas and Florida. With the Gators we have the plurality of Florida college football households, but not the simple majority. Hence we might face a reduced rate for a very large state. Texas poses a similar issue. The SEC outright owns all other states except Kentucky and South Carolina and right now we have a clear superiority in % of viewers in Kentucky and a narrow simple majority in South Carolina. Therefore, forgoing the possibility of landing UVa & UNC the SEC would be best served by adding two schools that lock down % of viewers in our two largest states. I think F.S.U. is doable and a better choice for SEC fit than Miami. Oklahoma gives us a new state, but also delivers the DFW metroplex which along with our numbers in Austin and Houston essentially gives us Texas.

If we do that first our boost comes from the content multiplication of those two brands and our base will never be any worse than it is right now for carriage fees, and right now it is the best saturation of any conference.

BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

(04-14-2016 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

Arkansas and Oklahoma have only played each other 15 times; three times since the start of the '70's.


Arkansas is (4-10-1) against Oklahoma

http://www.mcubed.net/ncaaf/series/ark/ok.shtml

Average score: Arkansas 7.9 - Oklahoma 21.7

Per decade
W L T PFPG PAPG
2000's 0 1 0 3.0 10.0
1990's 0 0 0 0 0
1980's 0 1 0 8.0 42.0
1970's 1 0 0 31.0 6.0
1960's 0 0 0 0 0
1950's 0 0 0 0 0
1940's 0 0 0 0 0
1930's 0 0 0 0 0
1920's 0 1 0 6.0 13.0
1910's 1 4 1 4.5 30.3
1900's 2 2 0 9.5 15.3
1890's 0 1 0 5.0 11.0

All games
2002/01/01 Arkansas 3 - Oklahoma 10 L !! Cotton Bowl !!
1987/01/01 Arkansas 8 - Oklahoma 42 L !! Orange Bowl !!
1978/01/02 Arkansas 31 - Oklahoma 6 W !! Orange Bowl !!
1926/10/09 Arkansas 6 - Oklahoma 13 L
1919/11/15 Arkansas 7 - Oklahoma 6 W
1918/10/19 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 103 L
1917/11/17 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 0 T
1916/11/23 Arkansas 13 - Oklahoma 14 L
1915/11/14 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 24 L
1914/11/21 Arkansas 7 - Oklahoma 35 L
1909/10/23 Arkansas 21 - Oklahoma 6 W
1908/10/31 Arkansas 5 - Oklahoma 27 L
1903/11/21 Arkansas 12 - Oklahoma 0 W
1902/10/22 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 28 L
1899/11/04 Arkansas 5 - Oklahoma 11 L

(04-14-2016 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

I think ultimately the SEC is going to have to decide which course to follow.

The SEC's strength over the last decade has been in the middle to bottom of the conference. We do well when our mid-level games do well, games like LSU v MSU.

How much value do you add if you have an OU v UA game but end up without AU v LSU, or MSU v UA, or AU v MSU? I've yet to see a real in depth look at weighing those alternatives.

Does adding another top run program and reshuffling the entire SEC deck actually serve the purpose of furthering the conference?

When you take a close look it becomes obvious that expanding to add OU or UT is actually a departure from the strategy that has served the SEC so well.

When it comes to academics a reliance on the AAU metric also is a departure from the SEC strategy of the past. The SEC has, more or less, taken the stance that AAU is a club--which it is--and one that does not actually comport with the overall missions of most of the SEC schools. Ole Miss' medical school is closed to out of state students for example. The SEC is less reliant on research dollars as a metric. Instead, most SEC schools have invested in attracting quality students which they have done well at.

There is real danger in adopting incongruent strategies simply because OU or UT look appetizing from a distance.

I personally feel that maximizing value with current members is going to serve the SEC far better than adopting a "take now" strategy to deny the Big10 some perceived advantage. The last 15 years of the SEC has perfectly demonstrated that. And, our additions here recently have shown the downside since we cant really integrate Mizzou without damaging the overall brand.

I don't disagree with your reasoning here H.O.D.. But I think what is driving the SEC right now is the desire to lock down Texas in case we have a shifting payout model. Having UT or OU gives us DFW in spades. I don't think we care so much about West Texas as we do the population centers. A&M gave us Houston.

OU fits right in the middle of the SEC academically. Yes they are a strong brand, but one that actually plays more at the level of L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida than it does at Alabama's level (though they do have that history). Florida State is the lock down on Florida and they are up when the Gators are down and down when the Gators are up and also fit into that same range as Auburn and Georgia.

When the footprint model dies we are going to faced with a model that rewards two things: Content and Market Saturation. The only two states the SEC doesn't own outright by that metric are Texas and Florida. With the Gators we have the plurality of Florida college football households, but not the simple majority. Hence we might face a reduced rate for a very large state. Texas poses a similar issue. The SEC outright owns all other states except Kentucky and South Carolina and right now we have a clear superiority in % of viewers in Kentucky and a narrow simple majority in South Carolina. Therefore, forgoing the possibility of landing UVa & UNC the SEC would be best served by adding two schools that lock down % of viewers in our two largest states. I think F.S.U. is doable and a better choice for SEC fit than Miami. Oklahoma gives us a new state, but also delivers the DFW metroplex which along with our numbers in Austin and Houston essentially gives us Texas.

If we do that first our boost comes from the content multiplication of those two brands and our base will never be any worse than it is right now for carriage fees, and right now it is the best saturation of any conference.

BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

I would take issue with you in South Carolina, but that is minor in this discussion.

It was interesting to see how much the SEC dominated the Houston market vs. the Texas/Oklahoma match up.
I agree with you JR that the capture of the DFW market WHILE strengthening the Houston market would be the best approach for the SEC. In my mind that has always meant Oklahoma and Baylor. But in order to make the Okies feel more at home (and less like Missouri) I have always felt that a third school was necessary, which would be Oklahoma State (solid athletics and big $$ numbers). Oklahoma State would also help bring Missouri into the SEC fold.
18? Isn't going to happen easily unless you take West Virginia too or give somebody up (Missouri or Kentucky to the B1G, SC or Vandy to the ACC). If the SEC goes to 18 then the PAC will too (Texas, TCU, TT, Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State) or 16 with Texas, TCU, TT and BYU (football only), Kansas and Iowa State to the B1G, Cincinnati and Notre Dame to the ACC and K-State is out.

(04-14-2016 02:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

Arkansas and Oklahoma have only played each other 15 times; three times since the start of the '70's.


Arkansas is (4-10-1) against Oklahoma

http://www.mcubed.net/ncaaf/series/ark/ok.shtml

Average score: Arkansas 7.9 - Oklahoma 21.7

Per decade
W L T PFPG PAPG
2000's 0 1 0 3.0 10.0
1990's 0 0 0 0 0
1980's 0 1 0 8.0 42.0
1970's 1 0 0 31.0 6.0
1960's 0 0 0 0 0
1950's 0 0 0 0 0
1940's 0 0 0 0 0
1930's 0 0 0 0 0
1920's 0 1 0 6.0 13.0
1910's 1 4 1 4.5 30.3
1900's 2 2 0 9.5 15.3
1890's 0 1 0 5.0 11.0

All games
2002/01/01 Arkansas 3 - Oklahoma 10 L !! Cotton Bowl !!
1987/01/01 Arkansas 8 - Oklahoma 42 L !! Orange Bowl !!
1978/01/02 Arkansas 31 - Oklahoma 6 W !! Orange Bowl !!
1926/10/09 Arkansas 6 - Oklahoma 13 L
1919/11/15 Arkansas 7 - Oklahoma 6 W
1918/10/19 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 103 L
1917/11/17 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 0 T
1916/11/23 Arkansas 13 - Oklahoma 14 L
1915/11/14 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 24 L
1914/11/21 Arkansas 7 - Oklahoma 35 L
1909/10/23 Arkansas 21 - Oklahoma 6 W
1908/10/31 Arkansas 5 - Oklahoma 27 L
1903/11/21 Arkansas 12 - Oklahoma 0 W
1902/10/22 Arkansas 0 - Oklahoma 28 L
1899/11/04 Arkansas 5 - Oklahoma 11 L

That's more than Missouri I think.

(04-14-2016 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

I think ultimately the SEC is going to have to decide which course to follow.

The SEC's strength over the last decade has been in the middle to bottom of the conference. We do well when our mid-level games do well, games like LSU v MSU.

How much value do you add if you have an OU v UA game but end up without AU v LSU, or MSU v UA, or AU v MSU? I've yet to see a real in depth look at weighing those alternatives.

Does adding another top run program and reshuffling the entire SEC deck actually serve the purpose of furthering the conference?

When you take a close look it becomes obvious that expanding to add OU or UT is actually a departure from the strategy that has served the SEC so well.

When it comes to academics a reliance on the AAU metric also is a departure from the SEC strategy of the past. The SEC has, more or less, taken the stance that AAU is a club--which it is--and one that does not actually comport with the overall missions of most of the SEC schools. Ole Miss' medical school is closed to out of state students for example. The SEC is less reliant on research dollars as a metric. Instead, most SEC schools have invested in attracting quality students which they have done well at.

There is real danger in adopting incongruent strategies simply because OU or UT look appetizing from a distance.

I personally feel that maximizing value with current members is going to serve the SEC far better than adopting a "take now" strategy to deny the Big10 some perceived advantage. The last 15 years of the SEC has perfectly demonstrated that. And, our additions here recently have shown the downside since we cant really integrate Mizzou without damaging the overall brand.

I don't disagree with your reasoning here H.O.D.. But I think what is driving the SEC right now is the desire to lock down Texas in case we have a shifting payout model. Having UT or OU gives us DFW in spades. I don't think we care so much about West Texas as we do the population centers. A&M gave us Houston.

OU fits right in the middle of the SEC academically. Yes they are a strong brand, but one that actually plays more at the level of L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida than it does at Alabama's level (though they do have that history). Florida State is the lock down on Florida and they are up when the Gators are down and down when the Gators are up and also fit into that same range as Auburn and Georgia.

When the footprint model dies we are going to faced with a model that rewards two things: Content and Market Saturation. The only two states the SEC doesn't own outright by that metric are Texas and Florida. With the Gators we have the plurality of Florida college football households, but not the simple majority. Hence we might face a reduced rate for a very large state. Texas poses a similar issue. The SEC outright owns all other states except Kentucky and South Carolina and right now we have a clear superiority in % of viewers in Kentucky and a narrow simple majority in South Carolina. Therefore, forgoing the possibility of landing UVa & UNC the SEC would be best served by adding two schools that lock down % of viewers in our two largest states. I think F.S.U. is doable and a better choice for SEC fit than Miami. Oklahoma gives us a new state, but also delivers the DFW metroplex which along with our numbers in Austin and Houston essentially gives us Texas.

If we do that first our boost comes from the content multiplication of those two brands and our base will never be any worse than it is right now for carriage fees, and right now it is the best saturation of any conference.

BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

I would take issue with you in South Carolina, but that is minor in this discussion.

It was interesting to see how much the SEC dominated the Houston market vs. the Texas/Oklahoma match up.
I agree with you JR that the capture of the DFW market WHILE strengthening the Houston market would be the best approach for the SEC. In my mind that has always meant Oklahoma and Baylor. But in order to make the Okies feel more at home (and less like Missouri) I have always felt that a third school was necessary, which would be Oklahoma State (solid athletics and big $$ numbers). Oklahoma State would also help bring Missouri into the SEC fold.
18? Isn't going to happen easily unless you take West Virginia too or give somebody up (Missouri or Kentucky to the B1G, SC or Vandy to the ACC). If the SEC goes to 18 then the PAC will too (Texas, TCU, TT, Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State) or 16 with Texas, TCU, TT and BYU (football only), Kansas and Iowa State to the B1G, Cincinnati and Notre Dame to the ACC and K-State is out.

I don't disagree with the concept of 18. Texahoma anyone? Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

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

It's works but is not as economical as this:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

(04-14-2016 04:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's more than Missouri I think.

Yeah, hogs played Mizzou about three times before expansion.

(04-14-2016 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would take issue with you in South Carolina, but that is minor in this discussion.

It was interesting to see how much the SEC dominated the Houston market vs. the Texas/Oklahoma match up.
I agree with you JR that the capture of the DFW market WHILE strengthening the Houston market would be the best approach for the SEC. In my mind that has always meant Oklahoma and Baylor. But in order to make the Okies feel more at home (and less like Missouri) I have always felt that a third school was necessary, which would be Oklahoma State (solid athletics and big $$ numbers). Oklahoma State would also help bring Missouri into the SEC fold.
18? Isn't going to happen easily unless you take West Virginia too or give somebody up (Missouri or Kentucky to the B1G, SC or Vandy to the ACC). If the SEC goes to 18 then the PAC will too (Texas, TCU, TT, Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State) or 16 with Texas, TCU, TT and BYU (football only), Kansas and Iowa State to the B1G, Cincinnati and Notre Dame to the ACC and K-State is out.

I don't disagree with the concept of 18. Texahoma anyone? Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

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

It's works but is not as economical as this:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

I'm just not feeling adding anymore Texas schools unless the only one is the longhorns. I think adding an Oklahoma school would probably cover our needs for market penetration in DFW even it was OSU.

Baylor scares me with all those sexual assaults going on. Once Briles leaves, will they still be relevant in the area?

SEC needs to be picky for the next additions.

(04-14-2016 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

I think ultimately the SEC is going to have to decide which course to follow.

The SEC's strength over the last decade has been in the middle to bottom of the conference. We do well when our mid-level games do well, games like LSU v MSU.

How much value do you add if you have an OU v UA game but end up without AU v LSU, or MSU v UA, or AU v MSU? I've yet to see a real in depth look at weighing those alternatives.

Does adding another top run program and reshuffling the entire SEC deck actually serve the purpose of furthering the conference?

When you take a close look it becomes obvious that expanding to add OU or UT is actually a departure from the strategy that has served the SEC so well.

When it comes to academics a reliance on the AAU metric also is a departure from the SEC strategy of the past. The SEC has, more or less, taken the stance that AAU is a club--which it is--and one that does not actually comport with the overall missions of most of the SEC schools. Ole Miss' medical school is closed to out of state students for example. The SEC is less reliant on research dollars as a metric. Instead, most SEC schools have invested in attracting quality students which they have done well at.

There is real danger in adopting incongruent strategies simply because OU or UT look appetizing from a distance.

I personally feel that maximizing value with current members is going to serve the SEC far better than adopting a "take now" strategy to deny the Big10 some perceived advantage. The last 15 years of the SEC has perfectly demonstrated that. And, our additions here recently have shown the downside since we cant really integrate Mizzou without damaging the overall brand.

I don't disagree with your reasoning here H.O.D.. But I think what is driving the SEC right now is the desire to lock down Texas in case we have a shifting payout model. Having UT or OU gives us DFW in spades. I don't think we care so much about West Texas as we do the population centers. A&M gave us Houston.

OU fits right in the middle of the SEC academically. Yes they are a strong brand, but one that actually plays more at the level of L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida than it does at Alabama's level (though they do have that history). Florida State is the lock down on Florida and they are up when the Gators are down and down when the Gators are up and also fit into that same range as Auburn and Georgia.

When the footprint model dies we are going to faced with a model that rewards two things: Content and Market Saturation. The only two states the SEC doesn't own outright by that metric are Texas and Florida. With the Gators we have the plurality of Florida college football households, but not the simple majority. Hence we might face a reduced rate for a very large state. Texas poses a similar issue. The SEC outright owns all other states except Kentucky and South Carolina and right now we have a clear superiority in % of viewers in Kentucky and a narrow simple majority in South Carolina. Therefore, forgoing the possibility of landing UVa & UNC the SEC would be best served by adding two schools that lock down % of viewers in our two largest states. I think F.S.U. is doable and a better choice for SEC fit than Miami. Oklahoma gives us a new state, but also delivers the DFW metroplex which along with our numbers in Austin and Houston essentially gives us Texas.

If we do that first our boost comes from the content multiplication of those two brands and our base will never be any worse than it is right now for carriage fees, and right now it is the best saturation of any conference.

BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

Fair

But it begs the question, how confident are we that the entire revenue structure will be turned on its head?

(04-14-2016 06:02 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 02:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would take issue with you in South Carolina, but that is minor in this discussion.

It was interesting to see how much the SEC dominated the Houston market vs. the Texas/Oklahoma match up.
I agree with you JR that the capture of the DFW market WHILE strengthening the Houston market would be the best approach for the SEC. In my mind that has always meant Oklahoma and Baylor. But in order to make the Okies feel more at home (and less like Missouri) I have always felt that a third school was necessary, which would be Oklahoma State (solid athletics and big $$ numbers). Oklahoma State would also help bring Missouri into the SEC fold.
18? Isn't going to happen easily unless you take West Virginia too or give somebody up (Missouri or Kentucky to the B1G, SC or Vandy to the ACC). If the SEC goes to 18 then the PAC will too (Texas, TCU, TT, Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State) or 16 with Texas, TCU, TT and BYU (football only), Kansas and Iowa State to the B1G, Cincinnati and Notre Dame to the ACC and K-State is out.

I don't disagree with the concept of 18. Texahoma anyone? Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

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

It's works but is not as economical as this:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

I'm just not feeling adding anymore Texas schools unless the only one is the longhorns. I think adding an Oklahoma school would probably cover our needs for market penetration in DFW even it was OSU.

Baylor scares me with all those sexual assaults going on. Once Briles leaves, will they still be relevant in the area?

SEC needs to be picky for the next additions.

Texas is the worst addition any conference can make.

It's just a simple truth that they are conference poison. Do we want to be the next Big8?

(04-14-2016 06:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 12:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 11:35 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is interested in taking TTU or OSU. They were passed up for multiple reasons in the past. The most important issue being that they aren't that valuable. But, they are programs that detract from the academic reputation of whichever conference they join.

Like it or not academic reputation is important to the SEC in as far as they are not going to add anybody that detracts from that insecurity.

You can look at the common data sets and clearly see that neither OSU nor TTU are going to be taken in.

The majority of the SEC schools have at least a quarter of their kids in the 30-36 ACT range. TTU and OSU look more like UAB and Troy.

I can put it this way, MSU has twice the percentage of those desirable kids than does TTU.

It's an open question as to wether or not OSU would be a package deal with OU but it is important to properly weight the various issues which will go into that decision.

I agree with your point and I don't think the SEC would take Texas Tech.

With that said, if taking OSU guaranteed us the addition of OU then I think we have to take the deal. The only other option we would have is to not expand at all which leaves the top programs for some other league to snatch up.

While we would prefer strong institutions at this point and preferably AAU schools, I think we also have to consider that there are very few of these schools that are available. This is especially true if the ACC doesn't break apart. Texas might be available, but we will likely have to take at least one more TX school beyond that and possibly more. And that point we are going even further down the road you are outlining. Kansas may or may not be an option, but the likelihood of having to take Kansas State puts us right back in the same situation, but with less attractive options.

I think OU and OSU is the most well rounded deal for us.

I think ultimately the SEC is going to have to decide which course to follow.

The SEC's strength over the last decade has been in the middle to bottom of the conference. We do well when our mid-level games do well, games like LSU v MSU.

How much value do you add if you have an OU v UA game but end up without AU v LSU, or MSU v UA, or AU v MSU? I've yet to see a real in depth look at weighing those alternatives.

Does adding another top run program and reshuffling the entire SEC deck actually serve the purpose of furthering the conference?

When you take a close look it becomes obvious that expanding to add OU or UT is actually a departure from the strategy that has served the SEC so well.

When it comes to academics a reliance on the AAU metric also is a departure from the SEC strategy of the past. The SEC has, more or less, taken the stance that AAU is a club--which it is--and one that does not actually comport with the overall missions of most of the SEC schools. Ole Miss' medical school is closed to out of state students for example. The SEC is less reliant on research dollars as a metric. Instead, most SEC schools have invested in attracting quality students which they have done well at.

There is real danger in adopting incongruent strategies simply because OU or UT look appetizing from a distance.

I personally feel that maximizing value with current members is going to serve the SEC far better than adopting a "take now" strategy to deny the Big10 some perceived advantage. The last 15 years of the SEC has perfectly demonstrated that. And, our additions here recently have shown the downside since we cant really integrate Mizzou without damaging the overall brand.

I don't disagree with your reasoning here H.O.D.. But I think what is driving the SEC right now is the desire to lock down Texas in case we have a shifting payout model. Having UT or OU gives us DFW in spades. I don't think we care so much about West Texas as we do the population centers. A&M gave us Houston.

OU fits right in the middle of the SEC academically. Yes they are a strong brand, but one that actually plays more at the level of L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida than it does at Alabama's level (though they do have that history). Florida State is the lock down on Florida and they are up when the Gators are down and down when the Gators are up and also fit into that same range as Auburn and Georgia.

When the footprint model dies we are going to faced with a model that rewards two things: Content and Market Saturation. The only two states the SEC doesn't own outright by that metric are Texas and Florida. With the Gators we have the plurality of Florida college football households, but not the simple majority. Hence we might face a reduced rate for a very large state. Texas poses a similar issue. The SEC outright owns all other states except Kentucky and South Carolina and right now we have a clear superiority in % of viewers in Kentucky and a narrow simple majority in South Carolina. Therefore, forgoing the possibility of landing UVa & UNC the SEC would be best served by adding two schools that lock down % of viewers in our two largest states. I think F.S.U. is doable and a better choice for SEC fit than Miami. Oklahoma gives us a new state, but also delivers the DFW metroplex which along with our numbers in Austin and Houston essentially gives us Texas.

If we do that first our boost comes from the content multiplication of those two brands and our base will never be any worse than it is right now for carriage fees, and right now it is the best saturation of any conference.

BTW: I completely agree with you about Missouri. That was a move pushed by ESPN. The rule of thumb when adding schools on your periphery should be first assessed by looking at the total number of games that school has ever played against your conference members. Oklahoma would have fewer, but has played Arkansas and A&M regularly and has a good number of bowl games against SEC schools. Missouri was the sparsest we have ever added in this regard. F.S.U. has readily adaptable rivalries beyond Florida.

Fair

But it begs the question, how confident are we that the entire revenue structure will be turned on its head?

1. Technology and public demand indicate a high degree of likelihood.
2. But, no matter what happens content will drive the payouts from here on out. Two brands that lock down two states will pay dividends without question. Two markets might not.
3. The budgetary outlook is not getting any brighter. Because of that we will gradually be negotiating away the body bag games too. And, if things remain tight for governmental funding North Carolina and Virginia may be available later if we want the hoops boost.
4. Oklahoma and F.S.U. consolidate our brand, and give definition to our footprint, while cementing our grip on the region.

As to your other post. Texas is poison, but I'm afraid ESPN is the one most interested in them.