(06-14-2017 06:18 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 11:54 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Big risk for the sec to assume ou would shop around. I would guess there is some division at ou and wouldn't be suprised if the pro big 10 fraction wouldn't want the sec to counter with ok state combo. Thus, if the sec doesn't offer ok state and ou upfront, the pro big 10 ou crowd takes a solo big 10 offer. It would give a little political cover, i.e. Sec never offered the combo. I would guess if ou moves it will be like Pitt and cuse joining the acc, the news comes out of the blue.

If ou and ku joined the big 10, Texas is still available but that is a huge ? Where they go. Looking at these options

PAC 16 with Texas tech, Houston and tcu
Acc with nd football joining or same deal as Nd
Big 10 with Texas tech or Missouri
Sec with x
Big 12 with a couple from byu, Colorado state, Houston, Cincy, uconn

Maybe the networks agree to pay the big 12 until the contract expires to limit damages of ou and ku jumping otherwise Texas is gone

Your point about the SEC refusing to offer OSU is a very valid one. If we did fail to offer OSU they would have all the political cover they needed. Personally I think the SEC should offer the deal anyway. With OU off the table the worst the SEC could do is split the top two products with the Big 10. But more importantly with OU and OSU SEC bound it becomes an even greater lure for Texas and it makes the possibility of Texas seeing the Big 10 as viable nil. There is no way Texas leaves for the Big 10 while leaving Aggie, Arky, L.S.U., and Oklahoma free to romp in Texas. The risk at that point is so massive that the only true counter that Texas would have is taking T.C.U., Tech, and Kansas with them to the PAC.

I think you are overlooking one possibility for Texas and it might be their preferred option over all others.

Lets say OU and OSU do go to the SEC as you envision. Texas just might go to the remaining Big12 teams and ask for a deal similar to what Notre Dame has with the ACC. I cannot imagine the remaining Big12 schools refusing such an offer with the threat of Texas bailing.

Texas would then have a most desirable situation for their non-football teams and their football team. They could even keep the LHN. They might prefer that over the SEC or maybe any conference.

They would have complete control which is what they like.

I could see that possibility happening and remaining viable until 2031.

Finebaum had an interesting question posed to him by a caller this afternoon. The caller asked specifically, "Do you think the SEC would offer Oklahoma State a slot in the SEC to go along with Oklahoma?" Finebaum responded, "Sure, I don't think most people realize just how competitive of a program Oklahoma State has. And I don't think people fully realize just how tied at the hip politically they are." Caller, "Why don't we hear more about this?" Finebaum, "Well because we are probably 4 or 5 years away before they could respond due to the GOR." Caller, "Is Oklahoma interested?" Finebaum, "Well everyone I talk with says they are very interested."

While Paul Finebaum is not always on top of everything SEC, although he does have connections especially through Mark Schlabach and Tony Barnhardt, he does now have some great ESPN connections and if anything has been discussed they would know.

and who was MD talking to

The BigTen really screwed up by not taking Mizzu when they had the opportunity. The BigTen is all about their stupid network and how much money it brings in etc etc. Well could you imagine if Mizzu was added to the conference not to mention all those TV's in the show me state the big payday we would have had to listen to. Well I don't see them leaving the SEC, but if Mizzu did which IMO would be stupid move it would be for the BigTen, and if I were them I would package them with Kansas to get that rivalry under the umbrella of the BTNetwork.

For Texas to join the sec or big 10 I think those leagues need to jump to 18 and land ou first. The same probably can be said for the PAC 12 but the option of 4 Texas schools might work for a PAC 16 post
Ou going to either the big 10 or sec. The key battle is to land OU

(06-14-2017 09:20 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  The BigTen really screwed up by not taking Mizzu when they had the opportunity. The BigTen is all about their stupid network and how much money it brings in etc etc. Well could you imagine if Mizzu was added to the conference not to mention all those TV's in the show me state the big payday we would have had to listen to. Well I don't see them leaving the SEC, but if Mizzu did which IMO would be stupid move it would be for the BigTen, and if I were them I would package them with Kansas to get that rivalry under the umbrella of the BTNetwork.

They took Nebraska over Missouri. I agree, that has turned out to be the wrong decision.

(06-14-2017 10:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 08:56 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Of the two, Oklahoma / Kansas, because Oklahoma / Missouri is a fantasy. But it's not entirely clear whether that would be attractive enough to justify expansion.

I'm not trying to cause a rancor, but this is exactly why the Big 10 is in a tough spot with regard to Western expansion. Colorado and Kansas have the academics, but not the sports gravitas. Oklahoma has the sports gravitas but not the academics and without Texas probably isn't attractive enough as a total package to merit the invitation.

To the East you have better options if you weren't facing traditional emotions and GOR's. Notre Dame and Virginia Tech would do more for Big 10 football than about any other contiguous pairing. But Notre Dame is adverse to such a move and the Hokies are covered by a GOR until the mid 2030's.

So with Texas under contract to ESPN until 2031 and with them earning more with that T3 contract than they could in the even the Big 10 of next year when the new TV contract kicks in, I just don't see the incentive for them to move. You can't take enough of the schools their fans want to see annually, and you can't pay enough to make ditching the LHN an option.

Therefore Bruce if you expand Oklahoma and Kansas are the only play. There is only one football first school out there that might help the Big 10's Eastern lineup that could be gotten but they have by Big 10 standards a terrible academic profile, West Virginia.

So somebody is going to have to make a decision on Kansas and Oklahoma and if the Big 10 offers that pair then we'll know what the SEC is prepared to offer. But the SEC is going to slow play this until then. We don't want to take OSU unless it is necessary. So if the Big 10 doesn't offer Kansas and Oklahoma then we can choose to offer just OU and try to shake Texas loose. ESPN would certainly be more favorable to that and could make it happen. If Texas wants an independent status like N.D. and therefore would consider the ACC (which I don't see happening) then the SEC would offer just OU and maybe KU.

But if the Big 10 offers the pair then I think the SEC would make a Texa-homa offer to Texas, Tech, OU or OSU, or since we have A&M, and they were part of the original Texa-homa that was shopped, we might offer Texas, Kansas, OU and OSU.

Without question the SEC would take UT and OU to 16. But I strongly believe we would take OU and KU to do the same. But like Ken D pointed out OU might not take that option without either Texas or OSU since they would have to schedule both as OOC games to continue their top two rivalries.

I would never want to see OU in the SEC. Parity is a good thing but anything is bad in excessive amounts. Imagine the SEC West with OU. Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Oklahoma. Already those are 4 programs who expect to compete for national championships. Then you have Texas A&M, Arkansas, Mississippi State, and Ole miss. Who are programs that are normally in the top 25 and in the top 25 in recruiting.

The SEC West will have gotten to a point where they may as well grab two average schools and just be their own conference. Say, they added Houston and UCF and played round robin with a CCG. You still have the strongest schedule in the country, you will have a amazing TV deal. You have excellent recruiting grounds.

Why keep inflating? 14 is big enough.

That's already true of the SEC (West) now. Except that Alabama is simply in a league by itself, and so it can still beat everyone anyway.

OU would fair as well as TA&M and LSU usually fair in the current SEC West, given that Alabama and Auburn would move to the East.

(06-15-2017 09:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's already true of the SEC (West) now. Except that Alabama is simply in a league by itself, and so it can still beat everyone anyway.

OU would fair as well as TA&M and LSU usually fair in the current SEC West, given that Alabama and Auburn would move to the East.

True. And it's about regionalism and money. And in this case the more regional it is for Oklahoma or Texas the more interest in the region it generates and the more money you make. Throw in the brands and the interest goes national. Markets still count, but moving forward content will be King.

If Oklahoma and Kansas make their way to the Big Ten could Texas find themselves blackballed from both the Big Ten and SEC by jilted former rivals?

(06-15-2017 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas make their way to the Big Ten could Texas find themselves blackballed from both the Big Ten and SEC by jilted former rivals?

No

(06-15-2017 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Oklahoma and Kansas make their way to the Big Ten could Texas find themselves blackballed from both the Big Ten and SEC by jilted former rivals?

I not only agree with Pony 94's remarks but I want to add a little emphasis.

"Not only no, but hell no!"

(06-13-2017 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 06:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Texas wont consider the SEC

You're going to be surprised.

All of the top programs consider the impact upon their branding before they do anything. For their alumni and fans that branding coincides with their business model and for football that is wrapped up in scheduling. Texas is the top grossing athletic department in the nation. If they have to abandon the Big 12, and that remains to be seen, they only have two options that protect their brand, the PAC and the SEC. Why? Texas's model is predicated upon playing in state rivals and neighbors with a big P5 game tossed in every season. The only way they keep that format is by moving with 5 others to the PAC or by moving with 3 others to the SEC. Geographically friendly schedules are essential to Texas. If Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas headed to the PAC then their division becomes the equivalent of their old conference home and the games with traditional PAC schools become their equivalent of the OOC P5 home games. Their OOC games then go to Rice, T.C.U. or whichever local schools they wanted to play. So a move to the PAC doesn't radically alter their business model, or their brand.

The same can be said of the SEC. If Texas Texas Tech/or Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC they would be in a division that reunited them with Arkansas and Missouri: Arkansas, Kansas/TTech, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas. Texas would play A&M as a permanent cross divisional rival. Again they would have essentially the same core schedule, the extra SEC games suffice for the OOC P5 they once scheduled and they have 3 games with which to schedule OOC games with T.C.U., Rice, and possibly Tech. Again their business model and branding aren't affected and ESPN makes sure they get bought out on the LHN. So that isn't a loss.

Texas has been in contact with the SEC since '91. Their boosters are warming to the idea of the SEC already. Again their new division would serve in place of their old conference and their fans and alums would be traveling much less than any other destination.

Where Texas can't go without jeopardizing their business model and brand are the Big 10 and ACC.

Their academics have never been an issue like some like to make it out to be. For most of their years they were content in the SWC which was anything but an academic conference. They upgraded significantly with the Big8 merger, but didn't blink an eye when 4 AAU schools left. And they land enough Federal Grant money that they don't need an academic affiliation that shares grants. They like Oklahoma will do what is best for the Athletic Department when making an athletic move. The rest is just so much chutzpah.

The question of the OP is legitimate. And no, I don't think the Big 10 finds enough value in Kansas (a market they already own) and in Oklahoma without getting Texas. Kansas is a bridge to Oklahoma. Oklahoma is the hoped for link to Texas. But Texas isn't abandoning their comfort zone and business model. End of story.

I envy your optimism JR. I hope things turn out the way you predict, but I have concerns. Perhaps you can address them for me.

“branding coincides with their business model and for football that is wrapped up in scheduling”

To me, branding for Texas begins and ends in Austin. They are the center of the universe. Once, their conference included seven Texas schools plus Arkansas. The conference changed, and changed again. The brand did not. The business model has changed, though, mainly from the explosion of TV money.

“Geographically friendly schedules are essential to Texas”

Geographically friendly schedules are desired by all, but not essential… airplanes, Interstate highways, etc.

“If Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas headed to the PAC”

If this lineup could make money, we wouldn’t be discussing the next destination for Texas and Oklahoma, Dr. Frankenstein.

“If Texas, Texas Tech/or Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC.. and ESPN makes sure they get bought out on the LHN. So that isn't a loss.”

This is where I get uncomfortable. Kansas is a good fit in the B1G, but in the SEC they are an even-number “place-holder”. Tech is a little brother. Ok State is a little brother. And, if truth be told, Missouri was added as a “place-holder” just to accommodate A&M. That is one big pile of poor relatives moving in. And we expect that ESPN will do “whatever-it-takes” to make Texas forget the LHN. The conference may see this as reasonable. The SEC is now, and forever must remain the premier football conference in the land. But, sorry, ESPN doesn’t really care which conference is #1 vs. # 17 in football prestige. They may say otherwise, but their only concern is that the conferences with which they partner produce a big, fat profit. Not a marginal profit; a big, vulgar, unseemly profit. The SEC can do that for them now, but perhaps not after your proposed additions. I know, I know, CONTENT MULTIPLIERS!!

“Texas has been in contact with the SEC since '91. Their boosters are warming to the idea…”

Never mind 1991. Who were they in contact with in 2017. And who will they talk to in 2018, ’19, ’20, etc. Just how many of their boosters did you survey? JR, I truly believe that any outreach to donors and alums is window dressing. No organization is going to involve thousands (more, for sure) of stakeholders in a decision like this. They will move wherever they choose and deal with the inevitable heat that will come no matter which way they go.

“The question of the OP is legitimate.”

The OP included two possible moves: Oklahoma/Kansas and Oklahoma/Missouri. Aside from LEW240z, nobody seems to have been taken aback by the suggestion that the SEC could be poached. Is that worth consideration? Call me crazy, but what if the B1G got a “yes” from Oklahoma. That could conceivably induce a “yes” from Texas and Kansas. Don’t say it’s impossible. And what does the media rights payout look like for the B1G, if that happens? So now, what if the B1G turned to the SEC for #18, but instead of Missouri, they seduced Texas A&M! This is a much more streamlined addition than the family plan you suggested for the SEC. This would definitely move B1G TV revenue into a previously unanticipated stratum. No fat, no poor cousins, just money machines.
Why is there no SEC GoR to protect against this? It’s not a likely scenario, but insurance would be in order.

Unless you're proposing a formal "casting off" of Missouri, which could only ever be politically allowed if it had a landing spot in either the Big 10 or perhaps the ACC, then Missouri is in the SEC, and that being the case, Kansas makes a ton of sense for the SEC, if nothing else for the Mizzou-Kansas rivalry, but also it adds more value than that.

Kansas to the sec seems strange. I guess Kansas was originally part of Louisiana back in the day though. I think the 2 Oklahoma and 2 Kansas schools should shop themselves to the pac12. If the PAC 12 added those 4, than Texas will not be able to stay in the big 12. The PAC 12 or 16 at this point can than offer Texas and Texas tech to jump to 18. I think the PAC 12 needs to build to Texas rather than wait for Texas. Giving a home to ou, Osu, ku and ksu is politically clean and forces the issue with Texas. Worst off the PAC 16 would have a nice foothold in the central time zone if Texas went elsewhere. Yet, I'm not sure where elsewhere would be. Texas seems to frown on the sec, the big 10 and acc would be isolated for them.

Kansas St and Iowa St are quite obviously P type schools ... but I feel that they, perhaps along with Baylor, due to unfortunate circumstances, and possibly TCU, are the schools most likely to get the P rug pulled out from under them.

(06-16-2017 09:59 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 06:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Texas wont consider the SEC

You're going to be surprised.

All of the top programs consider the impact upon their branding before they do anything. For their alumni and fans that branding coincides with their business model and for football that is wrapped up in scheduling. Texas is the top grossing athletic department in the nation. If they have to abandon the Big 12, and that remains to be seen, they only have two options that protect their brand, the PAC and the SEC. Why? Texas's model is predicated upon playing in state rivals and neighbors with a big P5 game tossed in every season. The only way they keep that format is by moving with 5 others to the PAC or by moving with 3 others to the SEC. Geographically friendly schedules are essential to Texas. If Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas headed to the PAC then their division becomes the equivalent of their old conference home and the games with traditional PAC schools become their equivalent of the OOC P5 home games. Their OOC games then go to Rice, T.C.U. or whichever local schools they wanted to play. So a move to the PAC doesn't radically alter their business model, or their brand.

The same can be said of the SEC. If Texas Texas Tech/or Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC they would be in a division that reunited them with Arkansas and Missouri: Arkansas, Kansas/TTech, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas. Texas would play A&M as a permanent cross divisional rival. Again they would have essentially the same core schedule, the extra SEC games suffice for the OOC P5 they once scheduled and they have 3 games with which to schedule OOC games with T.C.U., Rice, and possibly Tech. Again their business model and branding aren't affected and ESPN makes sure they get bought out on the LHN. So that isn't a loss.

Texas has been in contact with the SEC since '91. Their boosters are warming to the idea of the SEC already. Again their new division would serve in place of their old conference and their fans and alums would be traveling much less than any other destination.

Where Texas can't go without jeopardizing their business model and brand are the Big 10 and ACC.

Their academics have never been an issue like some like to make it out to be. For most of their years they were content in the SWC which was anything but an academic conference. They upgraded significantly with the Big8 merger, but didn't blink an eye when 4 AAU schools left. And they land enough Federal Grant money that they don't need an academic affiliation that shares grants. They like Oklahoma will do what is best for the Athletic Department when making an athletic move. The rest is just so much chutzpah.

The question of the OP is legitimate. And no, I don't think the Big 10 finds enough value in Kansas (a market they already own) and in Oklahoma without getting Texas. Kansas is a bridge to Oklahoma. Oklahoma is the hoped for link to Texas. But Texas isn't abandoning their comfort zone and business model. End of story.

I envy your optimism JR. I hope things turn out the way you predict, but I have concerns. Perhaps you can address them for me.

“branding coincides with their business model and for football that is wrapped up in scheduling”

To me, branding for Texas begins and ends in Austin. They are the center of the universe. Once, their conference included seven Texas schools plus Arkansas. The conference changed, and changed again. The brand did not. The business model has changed, though, mainly from the explosion of TV money.

Their business model has been predicated upon playing as many in state programs as they can and having a few key games outside of that. Currently that would be the RRR and one OOC P5 game of note.

Whether in the SWC or today they have had anywhere from 3 to 6 other Texas schools to play. Having the Oklahoma schools on the schedule as well is almost as good as having a Texas school on the schedule from the standpoint of travel. So nothing has changed. But that would all come to an end with a move to either Big 10 or ACC. There simply aren't enough slots.

“Geographically friendly schedules are essential to Texas”

Geographically friendly schedules are desired by all, but not essential… airplanes, Interstate highways, etc.


[b]People pick on Florida for not leaving the state to play except for conference games. Texas has enjoyed playing all over the state and at home almost since their inception. It is an essential part of their ticket sales package to keep it that way. Only now they realize they need a few more brands for national marketing and continued fan interest.
“If Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas headed to the PAC”[/b]

If this lineup could make money, we wouldn’t be discussing the next destination for Texas and Oklahoma, Dr. Frankenstein.

An en masse move to the PAC is the most often repeated scenario. Moves of 6 to 8 are frequently discussed as more of a merger but one that would leave them the core of their existing schedule now. It's not my original suggestion. But since it gets tossed around and would not threaten their current ticket distribution system I used it. Your pejorative reveals the true sentiment of your post.

“If Texas, Texas Tech/or Kansas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head to the SEC.. and ESPN makes sure they get bought out on the LHN. So that isn't a loss.”

This is where I get uncomfortable. Kansas is a good fit in the B1G, but in the SEC they are an even-number “place-holder”. Tech is a little brother. Ok State is a little brother. And, if truth be told, Missouri was added as a “place-holder” just to accommodate A&M. That is one big pile of poor relatives moving in. And we expect that ESPN will do “whatever-it-takes” to make Texas forget the LHN. The conference may see this as reasonable. The SEC is now, and forever must remain the premier football conference in the land. But, sorry, ESPN doesn’t really care which conference is #1 vs. # 17 in football prestige. They may say otherwise, but their only concern is that the conferences with which they partner produce a big, fat profit. Not a marginal profit; a big, vulgar, unseemly profit. The SEC can do that for them now, but perhaps not after your proposed additions. I know, I know, CONTENT MULTIPLIERS!!

ESPN has used the ACC to acquire the sports properties whose rights they desired. They will use the SEC the same way. Ideally the SEC would expand to 16 with just Texas and Oklahoma. Texas and Oklahoma pick their friends we don't. Oklahoma, and Finebaum re-iterated this point on Wednesday, is essentially joined at the hip with OSU politically. But even Finebaum, who I have little regard for, says that the pairing is likely. He's not the first. Several Big 12 beat writers have spoken of the same and people as credible as Barnhart think there is some substance to the possibility.

So if we have to accommodate OSU to gain OU (which is merely an assumption until proven otherwise) how do we make it profitable? Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas have been projected by the Big 10 to earn them an additional 10 million in per school payout. I doubt it would be much different for us, but with A&M maybe a tad lower. So what is the price for keeping those three out of the Big 10? If it's Oklahoma State and it still increases our per team payouts by 6 to 7 million that is a difference to us over our top competitor of 16 to 17 million.

Realignment strategies in '91 were both offensive and defensive in nature and essentially two separate plans for expansion were drawn up with each in mind. I'll refer you to an article by Jackie Sherrill on the '91 expansion that should still be available on Google if you choose to read it. Sherrill spoke mostly about the defensive consideration to move to 20 should the Big 10 try to move into the ACC.

I'll also mention a Birmingham FM interview with Slive the first of this year when the former commissioner responded to a query about realignment by saying he didn't think anything would happen for 5 to 6 years but when the current contracts were nearing expiration we could very well see movement. He then said he felt the next set of moves would lead to very, very large conferences.

So maybe you should refer to Slive and Dr. Frankenstein. Hmm?

“Texas has been in contact with the SEC since '91. Their boosters are warming to the idea…”

]Never mind 1991. Who were they in contact with in 2017. And who will they talk to in 2018, ’19, ’20, etc. Just how many of their boosters did you survey? JR, I truly believe that any outreach to donors and alums is window dressing. No organization is going to involve thousands (more, for sure) of stakeholders in a decision like this. They will move wherever they choose and deal with the inevitable heat that will come no matter which way they go.

If you could read and comprehend you will see that I said they have been in contact with us since 1991 which encompasses the present. I'm sure they will continue to do so in the future because if a school is planning for a move anywhere, even if it would be reactionary, they try to keep the best possible current information on their status with each conference. It's called due diligence

And I hope you do understand content multpliers in its application because any brand added to the SEC gives us a huge boost since we hold the most brands already. And that's where if we had to add a content multiplier for basketball having them be a weak performer on the football field might be a healthy thing.

[/b]“The question of the OP is legitimate.”

The OP included two possible moves: Oklahoma/Kansas and Oklahoma/Missouri. Aside from LEW240z, nobody seems to have been taken aback by the suggestion that the SEC could be poached. Is that worth consideration? Call me crazy, but what if the B1G got a “yes” from Oklahoma. That could conceivably induce a “yes” from Texas and Kansas. Don’t say it’s impossible. And what does the media rights payout look like for the B1G, if that happens? So now, what if the B1G turned to the SEC for #18, but instead of Missouri, they seduced Texas A&M! This is a much more streamlined addition than the family plan you suggested for the SEC. This would definitely move B1G TV revenue into a previously unanticipated stratum. No fat, no poor cousins, just money machines.
Why is there no SEC GoR to protect against this? It’s not a likely scenario, but insurance would be in order.

The Big 10 would be smart to try for the Aggies in that scenario. It has been shopped before. What could we do about? Offer whatever it takes to land Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas instead of letting the Big 10 have them because we are so danged stupid that we appeased Rant posters everywhere by refusing 1 little brother who is competitive in all sport and grossed 93 million in athletic revenue in FY2016.

That's what I meant by the difference. The Big 10 knows they can get about 10 million more for the three. If taking OSU dropped our payment to 6 or 7 million per school that is still more than we are earning now and it eliminates that other scenario for the Big 10 and leaves us with a NET advantage of 16 - 17 million. Now call me crazy but I'll sure as hell take that over letting the Big 10 gain access because we denied OSU and therefore lost out on OU and and as a result lost at least UT as well.

So in short compromise might very well make us more money and prevent our competition from getting into an area where we are gaining more and more recruits and threaten other of our interests.

The fact that ESPN is only concerned with landing the product brand they want and that it may coincide with any additions we might make is called a serendipity. At least this time if we needed a space filler it would be for the last time and having a couple of space fillers that are AAU appeals to the presidents of the conference (Missouri & Kansas). Grouping them also helps them lock in long term which is beneficial for the health of the conference as projected out into the future.

The Plains states and Southwest can both blend well with us, but they aren't exactly like us, or anyone else. Making them comfortable is just good long range planning. And as there was money with the CCG when we added South Carolina and Arkansas, there will be even more money with conference semifinals if we move to more than two division.

And once we are a P4 instead of a P5 the objections to structural changes won't have the teeth they did when somebody was going to get left out.
[/color]


[color=#0000CD]

If they can't stay in the Big 12, for whatever various reasons, then I would agree it makes the most sense for Texas, OU, OK St, and Kansas to all end up in the SEC.

If Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas would increase the per team payout to the B1G or the SEC by $10 million, that would suggest that those three schools are worth more than the entire current payout for all 10 Big 12 schools. It would put their value at roughly 2 1/2 times that of the average SEC team.

I know it seems counterintuitive that this could be true. How could 3 schools plus 0 schools be worth more than those same 3 schools plus 7 schools? The reality is, however, that OU and UT are likely each worth more individually if they are playing an SEC football schedule than they are playing a Big 12 schedule.

If I had to guess, Kansas adds the least value of those three. If just OU and UT are worth a combined $240 million a year, what would the SEC be waiting for? Wouldn't it be a good financial decision to go ahead and invite them immediately, and pay whatever exit penalties there might be? Especially if, by waiting, you run the risk that the B1G will beat you to the punch?

(06-17-2017 09:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas would increase the per team payout to the B1G or the SEC by $10 million, that would suggest that those three schools are worth more than the entire current payout for all 10 Big 12 schools. It would put their value at roughly 2 1/2 times that of the average SEC team.

I know it seems counterintuitive that this could be true. How could 3 schools plus 0 schools be worth more than those same 3 schools plus 7 schools? The reality is, however, that OU and UT are likely each worth more individually if they are playing an SEC football schedule than they are playing a Big 12 schedule.

If I had to guess, Kansas adds the least value of those three. If just OU and UT are worth a combined $240 million a year, what would the SEC be waiting for? Wouldn't it be a good financial decision to go ahead and invite them immediately, and pay whatever exit penalties there might be? Especially if, by waiting, you run the risk that the B1G will beat you to the punch?

Ken D. my estimations were a bit different than those from the B1G source I read. By my estimations Texas would be worth about 2 million to the SEC in per school payouts, Oklahoma would be worth about the same and Kansas might add 1 million. Conference Semis boost us to the 7 million mark provided we have more than two divisions.

I see the content value being worth more in the SEC than the B1G due to the extra number of mid tier games, and I was dubious about the 10 million figure but didn't think the argument was worth it if I could see how we might get 7 and at least 5 ourselves. Texas's value would be worth slightly more to the Big 10 because they don't already have a presence in Texas and we do.

As to why we wouldn't go ahead and do it? It's possible in the talks that we already know how the chips are going to fall and either we are satisfied with our position in it all, or the schools in question can't or won't make a decision at this time (my money is on this one), or both the Big 10 and SEC are fairly certain they don't want any little brothers and are both willing to wait until the GOR's are over to make their best offers to the ones they want (also very likely).

If the Big 12 implodes at the end of the GOR, the networks also have an advantage in that they don't have to pay except for what they want. And they will want specific schools with as little baggage as possible.

They run a risk however by waiting as well. Every major company out there interested in a piece of the sports broadcasting business knows when these contracts are up. If FOX and ESPN wait they may well pay a lot more for the same inventory because of new bidders in the market. Therefore it may behoove them to push this forward to conclusion early so that they can simply renegotiate existing contracts and extend them without suffering the added attention of future suitors. This keeps their potential overhead lower, and gives them more time to transition to whatever model will be best in 6 years. I think there is a better than average chance that this happens. If it does I can see 5 to 6 present Big 12 schools getting out, the rest being fully funded through the end of their existing contracts, and those same schools splitting the exit fees of the departing schools. In return the GOR penalties would be waived. Those which would be left behind in 2024-5 would be better off splitting 420 million in Big 12 exit fees (2 years TV revenue per school) and garnering good will with the networks than they would be to wait , get left at the alter, and having nothing further to show for it.

(06-17-2017 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 09:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  If Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas would increase the per team payout to the B1G or the SEC by $10 million, that would suggest that those three schools are worth more than the entire current payout for all 10 Big 12 schools. It would put their value at roughly 2 1/2 times that of the average SEC team.

I know it seems counterintuitive that this could be true. How could 3 schools plus 0 schools be worth more than those same 3 schools plus 7 schools? The reality is, however, that OU and UT are likely each worth more individually if they are playing an SEC football schedule than they are playing a Big 12 schedule.

If I had to guess, Kansas adds the least value of those three. If just OU and UT are worth a combined $240 million a year, what would the SEC be waiting for? Wouldn't it be a good financial decision to go ahead and invite them immediately, and pay whatever exit penalties there might be? Especially if, by waiting, you run the risk that the B1G will beat you to the punch?

Ken D. my estimations were a bit different than those from the B1G source I read. By my estimations Texas would be worth about 2 million to the SEC in per school payouts, Oklahoma would be worth about the same and Kansas might add 1 million. Conference Semis boost us to the 7 million mark provided we have more than two divisions.

I see the content value being worth more in the SEC than the B1G due to the extra number of mid tier games, and I was dubious about the 10 million figure but didn't think the argument was worth it if I could see how we might get 7 and at least 5 ourselves. Texas's value would be worth slightly more to the Big 10 because they don't already have a presence in Texas and we do.

As to why we wouldn't go ahead and do it? It's possible in the talks that we already know how the chips are going to fall and either we are satisfied with our position in it all, or the schools in question can't or won't make a decision at this time (my money is on this one), or both the Big 10 and SEC are fairly certain they don't want any little brothers and are both willing to wait until the GOR's are over to make their best offers to the ones they want (also very likely).

If the Big 12 implodes at the end of the GOR, the networks also have an advantage in that they don't have to pay except for what they want. And they will want specific schools with as little baggage as possible.

They run a risk however by waiting as well. Every major company out there interested in a piece of the sports broadcasting business knows when these contracts are up. If FOX and ESPN wait they may well pay a lot more for the same inventory because of new bidders in the market. Therefore it may behoove them to push this forward to conclusion early so that they can simply renegotiate existing contracts and extend them without suffering the added attention of future suitors. This keeps their potential overhead lower, and gives them more time to transition to whatever model will be best in 6 years. I think there is a better than average chance that this happens. If it does I can see 5 to 6 present Big 12 schools getting out, the rest being fully funded through the end of their existing contracts, and those same schools splitting the exit fees of the departing schools. In return the GOR penalties would be waived. Those which would be left behind in 2024-5 would be better off splitting 420 million in Big 12 exit fees (2 years TV revenue per school) and garnering good will with the networks than they would be to wait , get left at the alter, and having nothing further to show for it.

Yeah, my estimations would be a lot lower than $10 million. If UT and OU could add $4 million for each existing member, that's $56 million or $28 million each for OU and UT plus close to $40 million for their own shares. That's $68 million per team, way more than double what Notre Dame makes.

What could make those numbers more believable is if you could factor in adding two lucrative conference semifinals which aren't allowed under current rules. That alone could potentially add $4 million per member. Those conference semis would be much more valuable than just expanding the CFP from four to eight, and would, in effect create a de facto 16+ team playoff. In that scenario, you would almost never exclude a potential national champion from a path to that championship.