Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-17-2017 10:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

Weird to think we might add the same schools that the Big 12 did when they were trying to get back to 10, but I suppose it's possible.

If we go to 16 with those 2 then I would prefer pods...

-Texas A&M, TCU, Arkansas, Missouri
-LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama
-Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
-Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, West Virginia

That's a fair amount of balance and lots of rivalries preserved.

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State

B1G takes Kansas and UConn

ACC takes Notre Dame and Cincinnati

Swap South Carolina for Vanderbilt and it works more equitably. Kentucky and Vanderbilt are two weak sisters with two slightly above mid tier programs in Tennessee and W.V.U.

And God, I hope it never comes to this, but we should entertain worst case scenarios as well as the grand ones. As for taking the two Big 12 subs, is there really anything in the Big 12 better without OU, KU, and UT?

I was going to say if Auburn moved East the other option could be OSU & TCU which double dips Dallas but gives us Oklahoma. But as I stated earlier, 15 with just T.C.U. may be the best option of these three. But when you look at this and ponder it, is there any doubt whatsoever that OU with OSU is the better option here?
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2017 10:56 PM by JRsec.)
02-17-2017 10:52 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: #62
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
Beautiful mind/Nash equilibrium:

Neither the Big 10 nor the SEC can get all of Texas/OK/Kansas. In fact even two of the three throws off the balance (taking just Texas means getting Tech, etc)

Solution:
Neither league goes after the blonde (Texas), but each gets a brunette.

PAC 12 gets Texas and keeps up but doesn't overpower the Big 10 or SEC

SEC gets OK or OK/St
Big gets Kansas or Kansas/Iowa state

Not my favorite outcome but best outcome in a non-zero sum game?

Win-win for all three leagues?

Of course I'd rather have KS/OK and have Texas still go to the PAC or go ACC/Indy.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2017 10:58 PM by Soobahk40050.)
02-17-2017 10:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-17-2017 10:54 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Beautiful mind/Nash equilibrium:

Neither the Big 10 nor the SEC can get all of Texas/OK/Kansas. In fact even two of the three throws off the balance (taking just Texas means getting Tech, etc)

Solution:
Neither league goes after the blonde (Texas), but each gets a brunette.

PAC 12 gets Texas and keeps up but doesn't overpower the Big 10 or SEC

SEC gets OK or OK/St
Big gets Kansas or Kansas/Iowa state

Not my favorite outcome but best outcome in a non-zero sum game?

Win-win for all three leagues?

Of course I'd rather have KS/OK and have Texas still go to the PAC or go ACC/Indy.

Thank you, rep to follow. I've been wanting to demonstrate to a whole pack of naysayers, that what has been spoken of by 3 Big 12 beat writers over the last two years, and what even a guy I normally detest, Finebaum, has called likely, is actually the only reasonable, equitable, non-destructive outcome that the remaining P4 can obtain.

Thank you for presenting the likeliest outcome IMO.

Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, and a fourth school to be named later (possibly Kansas State) to the PAC with the PAC finally getting the coverage they need as the sell a % or equal %'s to ESPN, or to ESPN and FOX respectively.

Oklahoma & Oklahoma State to the SEC.

Kansas & Iowa State to the Big 10.

West Virginia & Notre Dame / Cincinnati to the ACC.

That's 8 schools, 8 votes for dissolution (possibly 9), and the best possible outcome for the majority of the Big 12. If N.D. joins the ACC in full then Baylor (a kind of justice) might be the only one left out and the field of 64 would be set. Nobody gets everything they want, but everyone gets something they need.

If this or something very much like it isn't the outcome then in 2022 Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma will all be negotiating their way out of the Big 12 and the resulting inequity will doom us to eventually forming two huge leagues of 30 to 32 schools. And even worse some of the minor players in the current Big 12 will miss out on the P conferences entirely. I wonder if they truly understand just how much they are risking by not pushing for movement now. Clearly Texas & Oklahoma and Kansas made their future desires known when they refused to add anyone else, and played out their charade to be able to claim plausible deniability for future legal reasons.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2017 11:31 PM by JRsec.)
02-17-2017 11:22 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: #64
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are a safe option, but a very good one and you don't have to worry about odd divisional setups.

Question...

We keep talking about conferences increasing revenue and what schools are necessary to do that under certain circumstances. Do the networks really care if a particular addition increases a conference's value?

It would seem to me that the networks will be more concerned about maintaining valuable content that pads their bottom line as opposed to reacting to moves a league might make and determining whether the additions will proportionally increase revenues.

For example, did Syracuse and Pittsburgh increase the value of the ACC? If it did, I don't see how.

Did Utah and Colorado really proportionally increase the value of the PAC considering the markets they already possessed? Who made those valuations?

Now obviously, Texas A&M and Missouri brought some serious weight to the SEC's footprint and such a move was necessary to make the SEC Network truly viable. But outside of that...

Perhaps then, these networks will simply pay for schools they want to keep and the conferences are expected to go along in order to keep the gravy train rolling. I'm not sure.

It keeps me guessing.
02-17-2017 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-17-2017 11:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are a safe option, but a very good one and you don't have to worry about odd divisional setups.

Question...

We keep talking about conferences increasing revenue and what schools are necessary to do that under certain circumstances. Do the networks really care if a particular addition increases a conference's value?

It would seem to me that the networks will be more concerned about maintaining valuable content that pads their bottom line as opposed to reacting to moves a league might make and determining whether the additions will proportionally increase revenues.

For example, did Syracuse and Pittsburgh increase the value of the ACC? If it did, I don't see how.

Did Utah and Colorado really proportionally increase the value of the PAC considering the markets they already possessed? Who made those valuations?

Now obviously, Texas A&M and Missouri brought some serious weight to the SEC's footprint and such a move was necessary to make the SEC Network truly viable. But outside of that...

Perhaps then, these networks will simply pay for schools they want to keep and the conferences are expected to go along in order to keep the gravy train rolling. I'm not sure.

It keeps me guessing.

1. Syracuse and Pittsburgh were added under the market model. Pennsylvania and Syracuse are two whoppers in terms of markets. It was a nice addition.

2. Utah and Colorado were the most populous of the two states left to the PAC with regards to contiguity. And arguably they were the wealthiest they could acquire.

3. A&M & Missouri were not only great market adds, but at the time both were competitive in both football and basketball. Nobody could have foreseen Pinkel's cancer. I hope he's alright.

4. Unsaid but Maryland and Rutgers were great markets for the Big 10 as well.

5. At least OU & OSU are the 2nd & 5th (maybe 4th) most productive athletic departments in the Big 12.

And no matter what, it would behoove the networks to wrap this up, encourage a G5 playoff, and get on with life before they alienate even more viewers and fans.

Forget pods and 1/2 divisions for now. Wouldn't these additions make for reasonable divisions:

PAC North: California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
PAC South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas State, Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Utah

Big 10 East: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
SEC West: Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

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

Now those are geographically sound, well balanced, and for football only. Basketball and Baseball could be handled quite differently.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2017 12:55 AM by JRsec.)
02-18-2017 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #66
The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
To add to JR point on Syracuse & Pittsburgh, this also allowed the ACC to renegotiate with ESPN & get a needed raise. At this time IIRC the ACC was only making in the mid-teens. This got the ball rolling for the ACC financially & took care of the BE for ESPN.
02-18-2017 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #67
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

WEST: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and TCU.

EAST: West Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Offers good balance, and helps keep the successful status quo in that it does not threaten any of the traditional SEC powers in a way that Oklahoma or Texas could.
02-18-2017 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #68
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 11:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  
(02-16-2017 10:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  But, I'm not sure I see the PAC taking all those schools. The financial package they offer is already inferior. They NEED those schools to generate massive revenue. The SEC and B1G are already generating massive income without them and will only make more should they join.

If, however, ESPN can negotiate a major deal with the PAC then maybe something like this would work...

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State while ESPN gets half the rights to the PACN. As part of the restructuring, the PACN is whittled down to one national network similar to the SECN. Not sure what they do with the LHN, but I would assume it's either rebranded or discontinued.

The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

WEST: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and TCU.

EAST: West Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Offers good balance, and helps keep the successful status quo in that it does not threaten any of the traditional SEC powers in a way that Oklahoma or Texas could.

Yes, but we are still talking about the worst case scenario here.
02-18-2017 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #69
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 10:52 AM)YNot Wrote:  The PAC would add most of the Big 12's media contract value if it adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas plus 3 other schools. TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Kansas St. don't carry much value independently. (I agree that TCU and the SEC have synergies that create value to perhaps justify TCU to the SEC; WVU would also carry some value if added to another Power conference, but not on its own).

So, the PAC would *substantially* increase the pie by adding most of the Big 12 value and getting full distribution for the PACN. And, the increased pie would be split 16-18 ways, instead of 22.

Note sure what the exact numbers would be, but let's say that the PAC and Big 12 each currently bring in $25M per school - $550M per year. The expanded PAC would essentially get the full $550 value (or close to it) and increase the pro rata payment to $30M (...fewer mouths to feed) if nothing else changes. But conference games like USC-Texas and Oregon-Oklahoma could see the PAC+ add even more value to the media contract such that it gets a bump closer to B1G and SEC levels.

Then, add the value of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas content to the PACN and full PACN distribution (DirecTV). That could be another $3-5M per school - or $33-35M total, pro rata.

That's a nice bump for everyone involved (assuming Texas gets compensated directly from PACN or ESPN/FOX for the sale of the LHN).

I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

WEST: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and TCU.

EAST: West Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Offers good balance, and helps keep the successful status quo in that it does not threaten any of the traditional SEC powers in a way that Oklahoma or Texas could.

Yes, but we are still talking about the worst case scenario here.

Actually JR, I think it's the best case scenario for college football (where attendance has been declining for six years in row). And it does not matter that SEC attendance is strong, because eventually it will affect the entire sport everywhere.
By allowing Texas, Oklahoma and little brothers to go to the PAC it will balance out football in the entire country. The B1G gets Kansas plus 1 if they want to go to 16 (Iowa State or UConn maybe) and the ACC could expand into the Ohio Valley with Cincinnati (not great, but not too bad either ((access to Ohio and their TV market and recruiting, heavily Catholic, moves Louisville off of an island and keeps us all in the ETZ)) ).
That may not be what the SEC had in mind, but it give them everything they need. Balanced divisions, second Texas school with access to DFW, a pod that Tennessee could dominate if we ever broke 8 team divisions in half, help in basketball without getting hurt in football, Auburn moves east (without Alabama), IMO that is as good as it can get.
Plus Alabama and LSU can still be kings of the west without being dominated by either Oklahoma or Texas. Worst case.....think again.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2017 02:24 PM by XLance.)
02-18-2017 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #70
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 01:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think you miss my point.

Let's say the PAC was able to make these moves and net $35M. Great for them? Absolutely. Problem is that the SEC is already at $40M and additions haven't been made yet. The B1G is in similar territory.

If you add most of the value of the Big 12 contract to the SEC or B1G then the number grows even more. So the Big 12 powers could go to the PAC and make $35M or go to one of the others and make $50M or more. If you're one of those schools then which do you choose?

Now, these schools could very well end up in the PAC, but I think the networks will have to orchestrate that as a way of securing their investment in the PAC and providing longer term balance to college athletics. Possible, but the Big 12 powers can't move to the PAC because of money...there just isn't enough to go around.

This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

WEST: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and TCU.

EAST: West Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Offers good balance, and helps keep the successful status quo in that it does not threaten any of the traditional SEC powers in a way that Oklahoma or Texas could.

Yes, but we are still talking about the worst case scenario here.

Actually JR, I think it's the best case scenario for college football (where attendance has been declining for six years in row). And it does not matter that SEC attendance is strong, because eventually it will affect the entire sport everywhere.
By allowing Texas, Oklahoma and little brothers to go to the PAC it will balance out football in the entire country. The B1G gets Kansas plus 1 if they want to go to 16 (Iowa State or UConn maybe) and the ACC could expand into the Ohio Valley with Cincinnati (not great, but not too bad either ((access to Ohio and their TV market and recruiting, heavily Catholic, moves Louisville off of an island and keeps us all in the ETZ)) ).
That may no be what the SEC had in mind, but it give them everything they need. Balanced divisions, second Texas school with access to DFW, a pod that Tennessee could dominate if we ever broke 8 team divisions in half, help in basketball without getting hurt in football, Auburn moves east (without Alabama), IMO that is as good as it can get.
Plus Alabama and LSU can still be kings of the west without being dominated by either Oklahoma or Texas. Worst case.....think again.

I agree the balance is better for the sport. I don't know that this will translate into a turnaround in attendance since that seems to be a generational issue.

Alabama and L.S.U. would not be dominated by either Texas or Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Texas would merely find that the SEC West, even without Auburn, was a grind like they had never encountered in their history. With a month off and time to prepare, and a schedule that doesn't subject their players to injury as often as an SEC lineup does, of course they can get up from time to time for a big game.

Auburn was a horrid selection to play the Sooners this year, with White truly injured for 50% of the season we made for poor competition in that game.

I say it's worst case for the SEC because of part of our focus in realignment which had nothing to do with on field performance, the enhancement of the SEC with schools that also improved our academic standing. Missouri & A&M did that. Oklahoma would be at our mean. OSU pulls us down. So even that pair is not optimum. OU and Kansas would do the trick, but KU is not a strong fit for us and we aren't a strong fit for them. Texas is the only Big 12 member that could enhance our standing as they are roughly in the same grouping with Florida.

I think there would be presidential push back against W.V.U. and T.C.U. although you are correct that they add markets and competitive sports programs without challenging any of the brands. W.V.U. truly needs to improve their baseball team and facilities. Do they have a softball team? No they don't.
02-18-2017 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #71
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is why the SEC must have one of them if the other goes to the Big 10. It is the reason the Big 10 must have one of them if the other goes to the SEC. If we each get one then our payouts jump north of 45 million. If one conference gets both their payouts will jump to over 50 million while the other stays put just above 40 million.

But, even if each of us gets one we both increase the distance between us and the PAC and ACC.

I would be okay with the PAC getting them both. We still can obtain our objective with T.C.U. (the DFW market). The SEC gets a slight nudge in product, and likely the Big 10 does as well and we remain relatively close to where we are now. The PAC catches up a tad, and the ACC if it lands N.D. fully does as well.

I believe that at some point in the future, if both the SEC and Big 10 land one of these two brands that the PAC and ACC will have to merge with us in order to remain competitive. If OU & UT head West together we will likely remain 4 distinct conferences.

So if we expand it would be great for us to land Texas and Oklahoma, at least financially.

It would be necessary for us to land OU if UT went to the Big 10 (which they won't).

It would be necessary for us to land Texas if OU and Kansas went to the Big 10 (which is much more likely than Texas going).

If both go to the PAC then T.C.U. is a good substitute for a presence in the DFW market.

But if T.C.U. comes on board we might very well go after WVU. Why? Without OU or UT to join with LSU, A&M, and Arkansas the move of Alabama & Auburn to the East would make the West too weak and the East too strong. So I think we would add someone else to the East. If we handled it correctly however, Auburn could move East and we could add another to the West.

WEST: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and TCU.

EAST: West Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Offers good balance, and helps keep the successful status quo in that it does not threaten any of the traditional SEC powers in a way that Oklahoma or Texas could.

Yes, but we are still talking about the worst case scenario here.

Actually JR, I think it's the best case scenario for college football (where attendance has been declining for six years in row). And it does not matter that SEC attendance is strong, because eventually it will affect the entire sport everywhere.
By allowing Texas, Oklahoma and little brothers to go to the PAC it will balance out football in the entire country. The B1G gets Kansas plus 1 if they want to go to 16 (Iowa State or UConn maybe) and the ACC could expand into the Ohio Valley with Cincinnati (not great, but not too bad either ((access to Ohio and their TV market and recruiting, heavily Catholic, moves Louisville off of an island and keeps us all in the ETZ)) ).
That may no be what the SEC had in mind, but it give them everything they need. Balanced divisions, second Texas school with access to DFW, a pod that Tennessee could dominate if we ever broke 8 team divisions in half, help in basketball without getting hurt in football, Auburn moves east (without Alabama), IMO that is as good as it can get.
Plus Alabama and LSU can still be kings of the west without being dominated by either Oklahoma or Texas. Worst case.....think again.

I agree the balance is better for the sport. I don't know that this will translate into a turnaround in attendance since that seems to be a generational issue.

Alabama and L.S.U. would not be dominated by either Texas or Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Texas would merely find that the SEC West, even without Auburn, was a grind like they had never encountered in their history. With a month off and time to prepare, and a schedule that doesn't subject their players to injury as often as an SEC lineup does, of course they can get up from time to time for a big game.

Auburn was a horrid selection to play the Sooners this year, with White truly injured for 50% of the season we made for poor competition in that game.

I say it's worst case for the SEC because of part of our focus in realignment which had nothing to do with on field performance, the enhancement of the SEC with schools that also improved our academic standing. Missouri & A&M did that. Oklahoma would be at our mean. OSU pulls us down. So even that pair is not optimum. OU and Kansas would do the trick, but KU is not a strong fit for us and we aren't a strong fit for them. Texas is the only Big 12 member that could enhance our standing as they are roughly in the same grouping with Florida.

I think there would be presidential push back against W.V.U. and T.C.U. although you are correct that they add markets and competitive sports programs without challenging any of the brands. W.V.U. truly needs to improve their baseball team and facilities. Do they have a softball team? No they don't.

1-Anything that makes football more regional is good for the sport and will help attendance in the long run.
2-Georgia Tech does not play soccer (men's or women's) and we don't require that all of our schools play the prep school sports of lacrosse and field hockey.

I'm sure that the SEC can afford to take ONE school that does not play women's softball besides, it's for the good for college football.
02-18-2017 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #72
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 02:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  WEST: Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M and TCU.

EAST: West Virginia, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Offers good balance, and helps keep the successful status quo in that it does not threaten any of the traditional SEC powers in a way that Oklahoma or Texas could.

Yes, but we are still talking about the worst case scenario here.

Actually JR, I think it's the best case scenario for college football (where attendance has been declining for six years in row). And it does not matter that SEC attendance is strong, because eventually it will affect the entire sport everywhere.
By allowing Texas, Oklahoma and little brothers to go to the PAC it will balance out football in the entire country. The B1G gets Kansas plus 1 if they want to go to 16 (Iowa State or UConn maybe) and the ACC could expand into the Ohio Valley with Cincinnati (not great, but not too bad either ((access to Ohio and their TV market and recruiting, heavily Catholic, moves Louisville off of an island and keeps us all in the ETZ)) ).
That may no be what the SEC had in mind, but it give them everything they need. Balanced divisions, second Texas school with access to DFW, a pod that Tennessee could dominate if we ever broke 8 team divisions in half, help in basketball without getting hurt in football, Auburn moves east (without Alabama), IMO that is as good as it can get.
Plus Alabama and LSU can still be kings of the west without being dominated by either Oklahoma or Texas. Worst case.....think again.

I agree the balance is better for the sport. I don't know that this will translate into a turnaround in attendance since that seems to be a generational issue.

Alabama and L.S.U. would not be dominated by either Texas or Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Texas would merely find that the SEC West, even without Auburn, was a grind like they had never encountered in their history. With a month off and time to prepare, and a schedule that doesn't subject their players to injury as often as an SEC lineup does, of course they can get up from time to time for a big game.

Auburn was a horrid selection to play the Sooners this year, with White truly injured for 50% of the season we made for poor competition in that game.

I say it's worst case for the SEC because of part of our focus in realignment which had nothing to do with on field performance, the enhancement of the SEC with schools that also improved our academic standing. Missouri & A&M did that. Oklahoma would be at our mean. OSU pulls us down. So even that pair is not optimum. OU and Kansas would do the trick, but KU is not a strong fit for us and we aren't a strong fit for them. Texas is the only Big 12 member that could enhance our standing as they are roughly in the same grouping with Florida.

I think there would be presidential push back against W.V.U. and T.C.U. although you are correct that they add markets and competitive sports programs without challenging any of the brands. W.V.U. truly needs to improve their baseball team and facilities. Do they have a softball team? No they don't.

1-Anything that makes football more regional is good for the sport and will help attendance in the long run.
2-Georgia Tech does not play soccer (men's or women's) and we don't require that all of our schools play the prep school sports of lacrosse and field hockey.

I'm sure that the SEC can afford to take ONE school that does not play women's softball besides, it's for the good for college football.

It would be a very odd situation for the SEC. Vanderbilt doesn't have women's softball, but at the time they opted for another Title 9 sport the choice belonged to the school. Therefore they are not now required to have one. However, it is one of the required sports for new entrants. I think that politically it would create a very sticky wicket. WVU covers part of their Title 9 with Women's Shooting. And their program is Olympic quality. If the burden was too much to add Softball it could get ticklish. If on the other hand WVU was happy to add softball in order to get a golden ticket to the SEC then problem solved. But you know enough about internal political issues within a conference to see how this could create a problem where one didn't need to exist. And remember too, that women's softball is becoming a revenue sport at a lot of SEC schools.
02-18-2017 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #73
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 03:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 02:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, but we are still talking about the worst case scenario here.

Actually JR, I think it's the best case scenario for college football (where attendance has been declining for six years in row). And it does not matter that SEC attendance is strong, because eventually it will affect the entire sport everywhere.
By allowing Texas, Oklahoma and little brothers to go to the PAC it will balance out football in the entire country. The B1G gets Kansas plus 1 if they want to go to 16 (Iowa State or UConn maybe) and the ACC could expand into the Ohio Valley with Cincinnati (not great, but not too bad either ((access to Ohio and their TV market and recruiting, heavily Catholic, moves Louisville off of an island and keeps us all in the ETZ)) ).
That may no be what the SEC had in mind, but it give them everything they need. Balanced divisions, second Texas school with access to DFW, a pod that Tennessee could dominate if we ever broke 8 team divisions in half, help in basketball without getting hurt in football, Auburn moves east (without Alabama), IMO that is as good as it can get.
Plus Alabama and LSU can still be kings of the west without being dominated by either Oklahoma or Texas. Worst case.....think again.

I agree the balance is better for the sport. I don't know that this will translate into a turnaround in attendance since that seems to be a generational issue.

Alabama and L.S.U. would not be dominated by either Texas or Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Texas would merely find that the SEC West, even without Auburn, was a grind like they had never encountered in their history. With a month off and time to prepare, and a schedule that doesn't subject their players to injury as often as an SEC lineup does, of course they can get up from time to time for a big game.

Auburn was a horrid selection to play the Sooners this year, with White truly injured for 50% of the season we made for poor competition in that game.

I say it's worst case for the SEC because of part of our focus in realignment which had nothing to do with on field performance, the enhancement of the SEC with schools that also improved our academic standing. Missouri & A&M did that. Oklahoma would be at our mean. OSU pulls us down. So even that pair is not optimum. OU and Kansas would do the trick, but KU is not a strong fit for us and we aren't a strong fit for them. Texas is the only Big 12 member that could enhance our standing as they are roughly in the same grouping with Florida.

I think there would be presidential push back against W.V.U. and T.C.U. although you are correct that they add markets and competitive sports programs without challenging any of the brands. W.V.U. truly needs to improve their baseball team and facilities. Do they have a softball team? No they don't.

1-Anything that makes football more regional is good for the sport and will help attendance in the long run.
2-Georgia Tech does not play soccer (men's or women's) and we don't require that all of our schools play the prep school sports of lacrosse and field hockey.

I'm sure that the SEC can afford to take ONE school that does not play women's softball besides, it's for the good for college football.

It would be a very odd situation for the SEC. Vanderbilt doesn't have women's softball, but at the time they opted for another Title 9 sport the choice belonged to the school. Therefore they are not now required to have one. However, it is one of the required sports for new entrants. I think that politically it would create a very sticky wicket. WVU covers part of their Title 9 with Women's Shooting. And their program is Olympic quality. If the burden was too much to add Softball it could get ticklish. If on the other hand WVU was happy to add softball in order to get a golden ticket to the SEC then problem solved. But you know enough about internal political issues within a conference to see how this could create a problem where one didn't need to exist. And remember too, that women's softball is becoming a revenue sport at a lot of SEC schools.

!&$#@ politics!
BTW Syracuse does not play baseball.
02-18-2017 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #74
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 03:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 03:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 02:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  Actually JR, I think it's the best case scenario for college football (where attendance has been declining for six years in row). And it does not matter that SEC attendance is strong, because eventually it will affect the entire sport everywhere.
By allowing Texas, Oklahoma and little brothers to go to the PAC it will balance out football in the entire country. The B1G gets Kansas plus 1 if they want to go to 16 (Iowa State or UConn maybe) and the ACC could expand into the Ohio Valley with Cincinnati (not great, but not too bad either ((access to Ohio and their TV market and recruiting, heavily Catholic, moves Louisville off of an island and keeps us all in the ETZ)) ).
That may no be what the SEC had in mind, but it give them everything they need. Balanced divisions, second Texas school with access to DFW, a pod that Tennessee could dominate if we ever broke 8 team divisions in half, help in basketball without getting hurt in football, Auburn moves east (without Alabama), IMO that is as good as it can get.
Plus Alabama and LSU can still be kings of the west without being dominated by either Oklahoma or Texas. Worst case.....think again.

I agree the balance is better for the sport. I don't know that this will translate into a turnaround in attendance since that seems to be a generational issue.

Alabama and L.S.U. would not be dominated by either Texas or Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Texas would merely find that the SEC West, even without Auburn, was a grind like they had never encountered in their history. With a month off and time to prepare, and a schedule that doesn't subject their players to injury as often as an SEC lineup does, of course they can get up from time to time for a big game.

Auburn was a horrid selection to play the Sooners this year, with White truly injured for 50% of the season we made for poor competition in that game.

I say it's worst case for the SEC because of part of our focus in realignment which had nothing to do with on field performance, the enhancement of the SEC with schools that also improved our academic standing. Missouri & A&M did that. Oklahoma would be at our mean. OSU pulls us down. So even that pair is not optimum. OU and Kansas would do the trick, but KU is not a strong fit for us and we aren't a strong fit for them. Texas is the only Big 12 member that could enhance our standing as they are roughly in the same grouping with Florida.

I think there would be presidential push back against W.V.U. and T.C.U. although you are correct that they add markets and competitive sports programs without challenging any of the brands. W.V.U. truly needs to improve their baseball team and facilities. Do they have a softball team? No they don't.

1-Anything that makes football more regional is good for the sport and will help attendance in the long run.
2-Georgia Tech does not play soccer (men's or women's) and we don't require that all of our schools play the prep school sports of lacrosse and field hockey.

I'm sure that the SEC can afford to take ONE school that does not play women's softball besides, it's for the good for college football.

It would be a very odd situation for the SEC. Vanderbilt doesn't have women's softball, but at the time they opted for another Title 9 sport the choice belonged to the school. Therefore they are not now required to have one. However, it is one of the required sports for new entrants. I think that politically it would create a very sticky wicket. WVU covers part of their Title 9 with Women's Shooting. And their program is Olympic quality. If the burden was too much to add Softball it could get ticklish. If on the other hand WVU was happy to add softball in order to get a golden ticket to the SEC then problem solved. But you know enough about internal political issues within a conference to see how this could create a problem where one didn't need to exist. And remember too, that women's softball is becoming a revenue sport at a lot of SEC schools.

!&$#@ politics!
BTW Syracuse does not play baseball.

And....the Orange aren't in the SEC now are they!
02-18-2017 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #75
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 03:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 03:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 03:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 02:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree the balance is better for the sport. I don't know that this will translate into a turnaround in attendance since that seems to be a generational issue.

Alabama and L.S.U. would not be dominated by either Texas or Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Texas would merely find that the SEC West, even without Auburn, was a grind like they had never encountered in their history. With a month off and time to prepare, and a schedule that doesn't subject their players to injury as often as an SEC lineup does, of course they can get up from time to time for a big game.

Auburn was a horrid selection to play the Sooners this year, with White truly injured for 50% of the season we made for poor competition in that game.

I say it's worst case for the SEC because of part of our focus in realignment which had nothing to do with on field performance, the enhancement of the SEC with schools that also improved our academic standing. Missouri & A&M did that. Oklahoma would be at our mean. OSU pulls us down. So even that pair is not optimum. OU and Kansas would do the trick, but KU is not a strong fit for us and we aren't a strong fit for them. Texas is the only Big 12 member that could enhance our standing as they are roughly in the same grouping with Florida.

I think there would be presidential push back against W.V.U. and T.C.U. although you are correct that they add markets and competitive sports programs without challenging any of the brands. W.V.U. truly needs to improve their baseball team and facilities. Do they have a softball team? No they don't.

1-Anything that makes football more regional is good for the sport and will help attendance in the long run.
2-Georgia Tech does not play soccer (men's or women's) and we don't require that all of our schools play the prep school sports of lacrosse and field hockey.

I'm sure that the SEC can afford to take ONE school that does not play women's softball besides, it's for the good for college football.

It would be a very odd situation for the SEC. Vanderbilt doesn't have women's softball, but at the time they opted for another Title 9 sport the choice belonged to the school. Therefore they are not now required to have one. However, it is one of the required sports for new entrants. I think that politically it would create a very sticky wicket. WVU covers part of their Title 9 with Women's Shooting. And their program is Olympic quality. If the burden was too much to add Softball it could get ticklish. If on the other hand WVU was happy to add softball in order to get a golden ticket to the SEC then problem solved. But you know enough about internal political issues within a conference to see how this could create a problem where one didn't need to exist. And remember too, that women's softball is becoming a revenue sport at a lot of SEC schools.

!&$#@ politics!
BTW Syracuse does not play baseball.

And....the Orange aren't in the SEC now are they!

Nope.......but they do play lacrosse (M&W), soccer (M&W) and field hockey and are where they belong.
02-18-2017 04:35 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: #76
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
WVU is a little odd compared to other SEC schools when it comes to the sports they sponsor...

They did just build a new baseball stadium so I have to give them credit for that.

They have rifle. Kentucky and Ole Miss have rifle oddly enough. Didn't know that.

They do have gymnastics which about half the SEC does not. I think that's a positive.

They don't have Men's tennis, Women's golf, or Men's track and field, however, they do have Women's tennis, Men's golf, and Women's track and field. Odd choices.

They do have wrestling which I believe Mizzou is the only other one with a team. I looked it up and the Big 12's wrestling league consists of the OK schools, Iowa State, WVU, and a bunch of affiliates. If we were to add those schools then we could have our own wrestling league for the first time in a while. I say that's a plus.

They do have Men's soccer which I believe Kentucky and South Carolina have that. We would be closer to having our own league in that area.

They also have Women's rowing which Alabama and Tennessee are the only other schools in the SEC to have that. Oddly enough, they both compete in the Big 12...lol.

I agree though that they need softball and SEC money would certainly allow them to afford it. BTW, just checked and TCU doesn't have softball either.
02-18-2017 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #77
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 06:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  WVU is a little odd compared to other SEC schools when it comes to the sports they sponsor...

They did just build a new baseball stadium so I have to give them credit for that.

They have rifle. Kentucky and Ole Miss have rifle oddly enough. Didn't know that.

They do have gymnastics which about half the SEC does not. I think that's a positive.

They don't have Men's tennis, Women's golf, or Men's track and field, however, they do have Women's tennis, Men's golf, and Women's track and field. Odd choices.

They do have wrestling which I believe Mizzou is the only other one with a team. I looked it up and the Big 12's wrestling league consists of the OK schools, Iowa State, WVU, and a bunch of affiliates. If we were to add those schools then we could have our own wrestling league for the first time in a while. I say that's a plus.

They do have Men's soccer which I believe Kentucky and South Carolina have that. We would be closer to having our own league in that area.

They also have Women's rowing which Alabama and Tennessee are the only other schools in the SEC to have that. Oddly enough, they both compete in the Big 12...lol.

I agree though that they need softball and SEC money would certainly allow them to afford it. BTW, just checked and TCU doesn't have softball either.

Oklahoma on the other hand is a softball beast. Yeah, I think T.C.U. would need to add softball too, but being in Texas that shouldn't be too hard to field if the choice came down to them. For that matter they might be able to pick up the whole Baylor softball team if they promised them a safe environment and an opportunity to play in the SEC. Don't underestimate the Sooner's desire to have their softball in a competitive conference.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2017 07:30 PM by JRsec.)
02-18-2017 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #78
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 06:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  WVU is a little odd compared to other SEC schools when it comes to the sports they sponsor...

They did just build a new baseball stadium so I have to give them credit for that.

They have rifle. Kentucky and Ole Miss have rifle oddly enough. Didn't know that.

They do have gymnastics which about half the SEC does not. I think that's a positive.

They don't have Men's tennis, Women's golf, or Men's track and field, however, they do have Women's tennis, Men's golf, and Women's track and field. Odd choices.

They do have wrestling which I believe Mizzou is the only other one with a team. I looked it up and the Big 12's wrestling league consists of the OK schools, Iowa State, WVU, and a bunch of affiliates. If we were to add those schools then we could have our own wrestling league for the first time in a while. I say that's a plus.

They do have Men's soccer which I believe Kentucky and South Carolina have that. We would be closer to having our own league in that area.

They also have Women's rowing which Alabama and Tennessee are the only other schools in the SEC to have that. Oddly enough, they both compete in the Big 12...lol.

I agree though that they need softball and SEC money would certainly allow them to afford it. BTW, just checked and TCU doesn't have softball either.

Oklahoma on the other hand is a softball beast. Yeah, I think T.C.U. would need to add softball too, but being in Texas that shouldn't be too hard to field if the choice came down to them. Don't underestimate the Sooner's desire to have their softball in a competitive conference.

There is no tougher league than the PAC.
02-18-2017 07:29 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: #79
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 06:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  WVU is a little odd compared to other SEC schools when it comes to the sports they sponsor...

They did just build a new baseball stadium so I have to give them credit for that.

They have rifle. Kentucky and Ole Miss have rifle oddly enough. Didn't know that.

They do have gymnastics which about half the SEC does not. I think that's a positive.

They don't have Men's tennis, Women's golf, or Men's track and field, however, they do have Women's tennis, Men's golf, and Women's track and field. Odd choices.

They do have wrestling which I believe Mizzou is the only other one with a team. I looked it up and the Big 12's wrestling league consists of the OK schools, Iowa State, WVU, and a bunch of affiliates. If we were to add those schools then we could have our own wrestling league for the first time in a while. I say that's a plus.

They do have Men's soccer which I believe Kentucky and South Carolina have that. We would be closer to having our own league in that area.

They also have Women's rowing which Alabama and Tennessee are the only other schools in the SEC to have that. Oddly enough, they both compete in the Big 12...lol.

I agree though that they need softball and SEC money would certainly allow them to afford it. BTW, just checked and TCU doesn't have softball either.

Oklahoma on the other hand is a softball beast. Yeah, I think T.C.U. would need to add softball too, but being in Texas that shouldn't be too hard to field if the choice came down to them. Don't underestimate the Sooner's desire to have their softball in a competitive conference.

Oklahoma is also a gymnastics power. They take baseball seriously at that.

The only aberration between the OU roster and what the typical SEC school offers is that they have wrestling and Men's gymnastics. They also don't offer swimming and diving, but neither do the MS schools.
02-18-2017 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #80
RE: The SEC and Realignment: A Review of a 25 Year Old Strategy
(02-18-2017 07:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 07:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 06:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  WVU is a little odd compared to other SEC schools when it comes to the sports they sponsor...

They did just build a new baseball stadium so I have to give them credit for that.

They have rifle. Kentucky and Ole Miss have rifle oddly enough. Didn't know that.

They do have gymnastics which about half the SEC does not. I think that's a positive.

They don't have Men's tennis, Women's golf, or Men's track and field, however, they do have Women's tennis, Men's golf, and Women's track and field. Odd choices.

They do have wrestling which I believe Mizzou is the only other one with a team. I looked it up and the Big 12's wrestling league consists of the OK schools, Iowa State, WVU, and a bunch of affiliates. If we were to add those schools then we could have our own wrestling league for the first time in a while. I say that's a plus.

They do have Men's soccer which I believe Kentucky and South Carolina have that. We would be closer to having our own league in that area.

They also have Women's rowing which Alabama and Tennessee are the only other schools in the SEC to have that. Oddly enough, they both compete in the Big 12...lol.

I agree though that they need softball and SEC money would certainly allow them to afford it. BTW, just checked and TCU doesn't have softball either.

Oklahoma on the other hand is a softball beast. Yeah, I think T.C.U. would need to add softball too, but being in Texas that shouldn't be too hard to field if the choice came down to them. Don't underestimate the Sooner's desire to have their softball in a competitive conference.

There is no tougher league than the PAC.

That has changed, or haven't you been keeping up?
02-18-2017 08:17 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.