Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
What if Texas.............
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,746
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #41
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-08-2018 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-07-2018 04:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-07-2018 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It may or may not come as a surprise to you but Maryland had been in talks with the SEC on more than a few occasions over the course of several decades. We always thought they were too remote for the move to be practical. The only time I'd say it even got warm was in 2008-10. I'm sure that's when they were in talks with the B1G as well. Then their markets and their debt were the synergy that made them slightly more serious as a prospective member, but the SEC had better prospects.

It does occur to me though that the ACC was put in a precarious position when Maryland left town.

Perhaps it wasn't in our best interest to be proactive in such a manner, but snagging Florida State and Maryland as a pair around that time would have made things very interesting.

Well we are talking circa 2010. So one impediment for the SEC would have been ESPN had we been serious. What I'm about to say is not known to me so it is conjecture. But let's say that Maryland and the SEC had some legs. If ESPN who was worried about the health of the ACC and had said no, it would explain why the Big 10 negotiations had to have been conducted in stealth and it means that they might have been Maryland's only escape.

Had the SEC taken Maryland and F.S.U. it would have killed the ACC. One core member and their best sports draw would have been gone. We would have used up two slots without gaining a Virginia or N.C. school and there was no way ESPN was going to let that happen.

I kind of thought the same thing.

If Maryland couldn't get out because ESPN wouldn't work with them then the best approach is just to take an end around. The B1G doesn't care what ESPN thinks so it was easy to get a deal done.

I would imagine as well that taking Maryland was the first volley in a plan to wreck the ACC and make some of the other schools vulnerable.
07-08-2018 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,309
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 340
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #42
RE: What if Texas.............
Interesting scenario

But as someone whose known them for a long time, I can tell you that whorn is simply too entitled to join a conference they can't control and will challenge them

What they REALY want, what they are really hoping for is the two things that will make their current ant hill fiefdom viable: An automatic bid to the playoff for the L10 champ and collective Conference bargaining to take away the growing financial gap that even they can't keep up with forever

I propose that expansion to 16 will not be about new markets but about reinforcing SEC control of its two prime territories by grabbing two strategic targets: Miami and TCU

They both firmly plant the SEC flag in highly populous portions of the state that are currently Conference No Mans Land and with big name SEC teams coming there frequently, they'll be SEC towns very shortly. Plus they have the added bonus of bringing in other content. FSU vs Miami will be a SEC property, A&M vs TCU has the potential to be the most relevant rivalry in the state of Texas.
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2018 09:01 AM by 10thMountain.)
07-09-2018 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #43
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-09-2018 08:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Interesting scenario

But as someone whose known them for a long time, I can tell you that whorn is simply too entitled to join a conference they can't control and will challenge them

What they REALY want, what they are really hoping for is the two things that will make their current ant hill fiefdom viable: An automatic bid to the playoff for the L10 champ and collective Conference bargaining to take away the growing financial gap that even they can't keep up with forever

I propose that expansion to 16 will not be about new markets but about reinforcing SEC control of its two prime territories by grabbing two strategic targets: Miami and TCU

They both firmly plant the SEC flag in highly populous portions of the state that are currently Conference No Mans Land and with big name SEC teams coming there frequently, they'll be SEC towns very shortly. Plus they have the added bonus of bringing in other content. FSU vs Miami will be a SEC property, A&M vs TCU has the potential to be the most relevant rivalry in the state of Texas.

That's a solid fallback position 10th, especially T.C.U.. I don't see Miami in quite the same terms but having a presence in South Florida would be important. It's just that Miami is not really a demographic that is going to continue to support college sports. I think one day that we might revisit this concept but by only going as far south as Orlando or Tampa.

I believe when Machen said that the SEC wouldn't expand again unless we could take a couple of jewels he was making an accurate statement as to the mindset of the presidents. So I think two top brand sports schools who are AAU would meet that criteria. Also, I don't see the ACC losing anyone until their GOR is nearing it's end, the 2035 -37 time frame. So if we needed two from the Big 12 to boost our contract and help us level out our divisions so we could restore rivalries then two to the West are in order. So at the very least it would require that we land one of Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas. If it is Texas and not another of those three then perhaps the 2nd is another Texas school or WVU. If it is Oklahoma and not another of those three then perhaps it is Oklahoma State or WVU. But if it were to be Kansas and not one of the other three then I think T.C.U. looks pretty appealing.

But in all likelihood it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But I believe that our leadership would look exceedingly favorably upon Texas and Kansas.
07-09-2018 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,313
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #44
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-09-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-09-2018 08:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Interesting scenario

But as someone whose known them for a long time, I can tell you that whorn is simply too entitled to join a conference they can't control and will challenge them

What they REALY want, what they are really hoping for is the two things that will make their current ant hill fiefdom viable: An automatic bid to the playoff for the L10 champ and collective Conference bargaining to take away the growing financial gap that even they can't keep up with forever

I propose that expansion to 16 will not be about new markets but about reinforcing SEC control of its two prime territories by grabbing two strategic targets: Miami and TCU

They both firmly plant the SEC flag in highly populous portions of the state that are currently Conference No Mans Land and with big name SEC teams coming there frequently, they'll be SEC towns very shortly. Plus they have the added bonus of bringing in other content. FSU vs Miami will be a SEC property, A&M vs TCU has the potential to be the most relevant rivalry in the state of Texas.

That's a solid fallback position 10th, especially T.C.U.. I don't see Miami in quite the same terms but having a presence in South Florida would be important. It's just that Miami is not really a demographic that is going to continue to support college sports. I think one day that we might revisit this concept but by only going as far south as Orlando or Tampa.

I believe when Machen said that the SEC wouldn't expand again unless we could take a couple of jewels he was making an accurate statement as to the mindset of the presidents. So I think two top brand sports schools who are AAU would meet that criteria. Also, I don't see the ACC losing anyone until their GOR is nearing it's end, the 2035 -37 time frame. So if we needed two from the Big 12 to boost our contract and help us level out our divisions so we could restore rivalries then two to the West are in order. So at the very least it would require that we land one of Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas. If it is Texas and not another of those three then perhaps the 2nd is another Texas school or WVU. If it is Oklahoma and not another of those three then perhaps it is Oklahoma State or WVU. But if it were to be Kansas and not one of the other three then I think T.C.U. looks pretty appealing.

But in all likelihood it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But I believe that our leadership would look exceedingly favorably upon Texas and Kansas.

Assuming we can't grab a school from the ACC, and that we only want 2 from the Big 12, that leaves 45 total combinations of schools to expand with.

Here is my attempt to rank all 45 combos. Obviously, my opinion, but I tried to be rational based on markets, matchups created, AAU status, etc. Taking WVU wouldn't allow us to even up the divisions, but I didn't factor that in.

1. Texas/OK
2/3 Texas/Kansas OR OK/Kansas in some order.
4/5 Texas/TCU OR OK/TCU
6-13 Texas OR OK with one of ISU/OSU/WVU/KSU
14/15 Texas OR OK with Tech
16/17 Texas OR OK with Baylor

(Rationale: Getting at least one of Texas/OK is better than any other option, even if we have to take Baylor to do it.)

18 Kansas/TCU
19 TCU/WVU
20 Kansas/WVU
21 Kansas + ISU (two AAU schools)
22 Kansas + OSU
23 Kansas + Tech
24 WVU + ISU
25 WVU + Tech
26 WVU + OSU
27 WVU + Kansas St.
28 ISU + TCU
29 ISU + Tech
30 TCU + OSU
31 Tech + OSU
32 TCU + Kansas St
33 Tech + KSU
34 Kansas + Baylor
35 Tech + TCU
36 Kansas + KSU
37 TCU + Baylor
38 ISU +OSU
39 ISU + KSU
40 ISU + Baylor (at least we get something, an AAU school and some Texas presence)
41 WVU + Baylor
42 KSU + OSU
43 OSU + Baylor
44 KSU + Baylor
45 Tech + Baylor
07-09-2018 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #45
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-09-2018 02:37 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-09-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-09-2018 08:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Interesting scenario

But as someone whose known them for a long time, I can tell you that whorn is simply too entitled to join a conference they can't control and will challenge them

What they REALY want, what they are really hoping for is the two things that will make their current ant hill fiefdom viable: An automatic bid to the playoff for the L10 champ and collective Conference bargaining to take away the growing financial gap that even they can't keep up with forever

I propose that expansion to 16 will not be about new markets but about reinforcing SEC control of its two prime territories by grabbing two strategic targets: Miami and TCU

They both firmly plant the SEC flag in highly populous portions of the state that are currently Conference No Mans Land and with big name SEC teams coming there frequently, they'll be SEC towns very shortly. Plus they have the added bonus of bringing in other content. FSU vs Miami will be a SEC property, A&M vs TCU has the potential to be the most relevant rivalry in the state of Texas.

That's a solid fallback position 10th, especially T.C.U.. I don't see Miami in quite the same terms but having a presence in South Florida would be important. It's just that Miami is not really a demographic that is going to continue to support college sports. I think one day that we might revisit this concept but by only going as far south as Orlando or Tampa.

I believe when Machen said that the SEC wouldn't expand again unless we could take a couple of jewels he was making an accurate statement as to the mindset of the presidents. So I think two top brand sports schools who are AAU would meet that criteria. Also, I don't see the ACC losing anyone until their GOR is nearing it's end, the 2035 -37 time frame. So if we needed two from the Big 12 to boost our contract and help us level out our divisions so we could restore rivalries then two to the West are in order. So at the very least it would require that we land one of Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas. If it is Texas and not another of those three then perhaps the 2nd is another Texas school or WVU. If it is Oklahoma and not another of those three then perhaps it is Oklahoma State or WVU. But if it were to be Kansas and not one of the other three then I think T.C.U. looks pretty appealing.

But in all likelihood it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But I believe that our leadership would look exceedingly favorably upon Texas and Kansas.

Assuming we can't grab a school from the ACC, and that we only want 2 from the Big 12, that leaves 45 total combinations of schools to expand with.

Here is my attempt to rank all 45 combos. Obviously, my opinion, but I tried to be rational based on markets, matchups created, AAU status, etc. Taking WVU wouldn't allow us to even up the divisions, but I didn't factor that in.

1. Texas/OK
2/3 Texas/Kansas OR OK/Kansas in some order.
4/5 Texas/TCU OR OK/TCU
6-13 Texas OR OK with one of ISU/OSU/WVU/KSU
14/15 Texas OR OK with Tech
16/17 Texas OR OK with Baylor

(Rationale: Getting at least one of Texas/OK is better than any other option, even if we have to take Baylor to do it.)

18 Kansas/TCU
19 TCU/WVU
20 Kansas/WVU
21 Kansas + ISU (two AAU schools)
22 Kansas + OSU
23 Kansas + Tech
24 WVU + ISU
25 WVU + Tech
26 WVU + OSU
27 WVU + Kansas St.
28 ISU + TCU
29 ISU + Tech
30 TCU + OSU
31 Tech + OSU
32 TCU + Kansas St
33 Tech + KSU
34 Kansas + Baylor
35 Tech + TCU
36 Kansas + KSU
37 TCU + Baylor
38 ISU +OSU
39 ISU + KSU
40 ISU + Baylor (at least we get something, an AAU school and some Texas presence)
41 WVU + Baylor
42 KSU + OSU
43 OSU + Baylor
44 KSU + Baylor
45 Tech + Baylor

I don't think an option below #18 would even be considered. If those were our choices we would wait.
07-09-2018 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,872
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #46
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-09-2018 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-09-2018 02:37 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-09-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-09-2018 08:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Interesting scenario

But as someone whose known them for a long time, I can tell you that whorn is simply too entitled to join a conference they can't control and will challenge them

What they REALY want, what they are really hoping for is the two things that will make their current ant hill fiefdom viable: An automatic bid to the playoff for the L10 champ and collective Conference bargaining to take away the growing financial gap that even they can't keep up with forever

I propose that expansion to 16 will not be about new markets but about reinforcing SEC control of its two prime territories by grabbing two strategic targets: Miami and TCU

They both firmly plant the SEC flag in highly populous portions of the state that are currently Conference No Mans Land and with big name SEC teams coming there frequently, they'll be SEC towns very shortly. Plus they have the added bonus of bringing in other content. FSU vs Miami will be a SEC property, A&M vs TCU has the potential to be the most relevant rivalry in the state of Texas.

That's a solid fallback position 10th, especially T.C.U.. I don't see Miami in quite the same terms but having a presence in South Florida would be important. It's just that Miami is not really a demographic that is going to continue to support college sports. I think one day that we might revisit this concept but by only going as far south as Orlando or Tampa.

I believe when Machen said that the SEC wouldn't expand again unless we could take a couple of jewels he was making an accurate statement as to the mindset of the presidents. So I think two top brand sports schools who are AAU would meet that criteria. Also, I don't see the ACC losing anyone until their GOR is nearing it's end, the 2035 -37 time frame. So if we needed two from the Big 12 to boost our contract and help us level out our divisions so we could restore rivalries then two to the West are in order. So at the very least it would require that we land one of Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Kansas. If it is Texas and not another of those three then perhaps the 2nd is another Texas school or WVU. If it is Oklahoma and not another of those three then perhaps it is Oklahoma State or WVU. But if it were to be Kansas and not one of the other three then I think T.C.U. looks pretty appealing.

But in all likelihood it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But I believe that our leadership would look exceedingly favorably upon Texas and Kansas.

Assuming we can't grab a school from the ACC, and that we only want 2 from the Big 12, that leaves 45 total combinations of schools to expand with.

Here is my attempt to rank all 45 combos. Obviously, my opinion, but I tried to be rational based on markets, matchups created, AAU status, etc. Taking WVU wouldn't allow us to even up the divisions, but I didn't factor that in.

1. Texas/OK
2/3 Texas/Kansas OR OK/Kansas in some order.
4/5 Texas/TCU OR OK/TCU
6-13 Texas OR OK with one of ISU/OSU/WVU/KSU
14/15 Texas OR OK with Tech
16/17 Texas OR OK with Baylor

(Rationale: Getting at least one of Texas/OK is better than any other option, even if we have to take Baylor to do it.)

18 Kansas/TCU
19 TCU/WVU
20 Kansas/WVU
21 Kansas + ISU (two AAU schools)
22 Kansas + OSU
23 Kansas + Tech
24 WVU + ISU
25 WVU + Tech
26 WVU + OSU
27 WVU + Kansas St.
28 ISU + TCU
29 ISU + Tech
30 TCU + OSU
31 Tech + OSU
32 TCU + Kansas St
33 Tech + KSU
34 Kansas + Baylor
35 Tech + TCU
36 Kansas + KSU
37 TCU + Baylor
38 ISU +OSU
39 ISU + KSU
40 ISU + Baylor (at least we get something, an AAU school and some Texas presence)
41 WVU + Baylor
42 KSU + OSU
43 OSU + Baylor
44 KSU + Baylor
45 Tech + Baylor

I don't think an option below #18 would even be considered. If those were our choices we would wait.

Agreed. Need an Ace jewel of college football. One who is a content multiplier. Academics will matter, but they need to add value to the conference or no new editions.
07-09-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,746
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #47
RE: What if Texas.............
What if Texas feels like they have time to wait?

What if ESPN wants to use UT as bait for the PAC 12?

Disney/ESPN has been in acquisition mode and I'd bet having a lot of decent Power conference games on their secondary networks as well as on ESPN+ is their favored strategy.

While the PAC is not the premier content as far as college athletics goes, it's still better than what a lot of leagues put forth. That and it's the top product for an entire region. It makes sense that ESPN would want more of that product in the fold.

Both the SEC and ACC will have networks that need at least 3 football games per day. Disney needs to put games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the occasional game on ESPNews. They'll probably want some on ESPN+ as well.

The Big 12 financial outlook isn't sustainable, but the PAC 12 could be saved. All ESPN has to do is buy the PAC Network in exchange for sending Texas and 3 others in that direction. The PAC would probably be fine throwing all in with ESPN on the first contract just to see how it would work.

In the end, I don't think ESPN would want Texas in the SEC because it means ceding the value of that state to one conference. I highly doubt UT wants to move to the Big Ten and the ACC is risky for several different reasons. The PAC fits them in a lot of respects though and if there is to be a P4 then the PAC needs a couple more brands to make their contribution respectable. Enter UT.

A while back, Cowherd predicted that Texas would go to the PAC and Oklahoma would go to the SEC. Let's side aside for a moment that Cowherd is a circus, he's still an influential media member with connections to the highest levels of the network landscape. We also heard Finebaum say Oklahoma and Oklahoma State might very well end up in the SEC. That's before F-baum got scolded by Sankey.

So what if Texas would consider the SEC, but would rather chart their course elsewhere? What if they want to play more local schools and the SEC won't take very many? What if they want to try this PAC thing out for a while and hey, if it doesn't work then the SEC would surely still take them 10-15 years down the road. From UT's perspective, is there a good reason to rush into something that's not your first choice?

UT would have an easier path to the CFP in the PAC. UT would have more influence in the PAC. UT will still make a lot of money, probably a little more than what they're taking down from the Big 12 right now. UT could play more local schools in all likelihood. UT would still be in the ESPN family and ESPN wouldn't have to cede the gigantic state of TX to one league.

So how about something like this?

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston

The PAC could sort themselves into pods or something else suitable that wouldn't lock out schools from CA or TX.

The SEC can still get their content multiplier though. They can still get better viewership in TX. Oklahoma works and OU is probably a better fit overall anyway. The league would probably still have to take OSU though, but there are ways to reward that sort of loyalty.

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Baylor

I'm fairly certain ESPN still wants KU in the fold and sticking them in the SEC is the easiest way to do it. That and both OU and Missouri have rivalries with them. Saving Baylor gives the SEC a little more viewership in TX without altering the balance of power.

ESPN comes up with the cash to make it worth the SEC's while because a couple of extra schools makes the splitting of the Big 12 much smoother and therefore the earning potential of a P4 a reality.

The ACC still needs a little security though. I'm not sure West Virginia provides that in the long run, but if the Big 12 goes away then Notre Dame will have a hard time not going all in.

I don't think the B1G is in a position to get any help from ESPN. I'm not sure what they would do in response to all this. I think their prime targets are in the ACC anyway and since that league is locked up for another decade plus then maybe ESPN can afford to kick the can down the road.
07-10-2018 01:58 AM
Find all posts by this user
Saint Bulldog Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 21
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Miss. State
Location: Right Here
Post: #48
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-10-2018 01:58 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Baylor

I agree that Texas would not play nice in the SEC because they cannot run things like they have in the old SWC and the Big 12.
I cannot see the SEC taking Baylor, under any circumstance. I also do not see Okie State coming with Oklahoma, because we do not need them. I do think they want to nail down the Dallas-Fort Worth Market and OU can do that for them. If they do not want to come without OSU then move to TCU (or, dare I say, even SMU) to nail down the market. Then we bring in Kansas.
After that, the SEC waits. It is no secret that the "powers that be" have wanted a school from North Carolina and Virginia. Could you imagine a SEC Basketball tournament with UNC, UK and KU? SEC basketball would rival SEC football. And the TV money would flow into the SEC coffers.
07-10-2018 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 6,447
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 257
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #49
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-06-2018 04:55 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The idea of Texas and Kansas as a pair to the SEC has been one of the more interesting rumors the last couple of years.

I'm not sure where it originated, but it makes me think it's not just a theory on a message board.

I don't know if I've ever talked about this, but in the early 2000s I read an article about Missouri being displeased with the Big 12. They wanted out and apparently had an eye on the SEC. I didn't think much of it at the time although I found the notion interesting. Low and behold, about 10 years later it actually happened.

When people started suggesting Mizzou as an expansion target last time around, I did think it was unusual, but I knew it wasn't the first time I had heard it. Where did I hear it before? The Tuscaloosa News and I'm pretty sure it was written by Cecil Hurt although it could have been another writer from the time.

I don't have any idea why the Tuscaloosa News would have printed an article on that subject, but I remember it like it was yesterday. I've searched desperately for that article in online archives and could not find a thing. I even emailed Cecil Hurt about it once and he didn't remember writing it. It might not have even been the subject of the article, but rather a blurb within it. I'm not sure on that part. Promise I'm not making it up though... 04-cheers

Anyway, it occurred to me one day that a lot of these decisions are explored and planned well in advance. The people making these decisions don't tend to make snap judgements.

So that brings me back to the idea of Texas and Kansas to the SEC circulating for a while.

1. We know Kansas has committed $300 million to improvements including some premium seating that seems quite odd with what we know about KU football. I mean, that's an awful lot of money to drop on a hail mary.

2. Jeff Long joining the team over there makes me think they have a nice long term vision. He's well respected and accomplished. I don't think he would have taken a job like that if they were bound for the American...just my take.

3. We know that the SEC is on their wish list based on the ESPN article a few years back that had a blurb quoting an unnamed KU official.

4. ESPN loves Kansas basketball so much they went to the trouble of signing a 3rd Tier deal with them. The easiest place to store that product is in the SEC and I contend that if ESPN wants that product bad enough then they'll pay for it.

5. Kansas is one of the very few schools that fits Sankey's stated vision for expansion. He said the next expansion will be very similar to the last one. He mentioned new states(border states) and AAU schools specifically.

We already know why Texas makes sense. The only question seems to be over whether or not they pull the trigger. As JR has laid out, however, there's really no good reason for them to go elsewhere.

1. If Texas really wanted to go to the PAC then they would have bolted last time. All UT had to do was drop their demand for Baylor and the deal would have happened. As it stands, the PAC probably can't ever pay enough to make it worth the while.

2. The Big Ten is not really a reasonable option either. The travel would be very tough and without any of the perks of getting exposure in growing Western markets. They'd get plenty of money out of the deal, but the B1G needs a school like Texas a lot more than Texas needs the B1G.

3. The ACC doesn't make a lot of sense in part because the money doesn't make sense. The travel would also be tough and it's not really an institutional fit. UT is a large state flagship with a football first athletic program. The ACC needs schools like that, but it wouldn't do much for Texas.

So why does the SEC make sense? Other than the obvious, there are some reasons it works best for what UT is looking for.

1. The SEC is in a lot better position than it was 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the league is at its height of prestige and because of demographic trends, it's only going to grow.

2. It's not just that the money would be huge, the savings in travel costs alone would probably be a few million a year.

3. The LHN and the BTN are not going to mesh because ESPN and FOX are not going to mesh. At that, I think there's a lot more potential for using a property like the LHN in conjunction with the SEC than with any other league. I don't see the LHN being discontinued because ESPN has fought hard to get it carriage. The only problem with the channel is lack of content and low sub fees. Those sorts of things could be remedied with the right approach. If a 16 team SEC had access to 2 linear channels then there are ways to take advantage of that and generate additional funds.

4. The academic angle isn't overplayed, it's just silly. For one, UT has fought to keep the Big 12 together and that league has never been a paragon of academic excellence. More to the point, if the CIC or whatever they are calling it nowadays was of real material value then the Big Ten wouldn't have athletic affiliation as a prerequisite for membership. Wouldn't it be very strange of an academic first conference to want your football team in the fold before allowing you into a consortium? There's no reason for CIC membership to be linked with Big Ten membership other than that's just the way they want to do it. At that, schools like Chicago wouldn't have bailed out and schools like Johns Hopkins would have actually joined. I'm sure the CIC provides some usefulness or they wouldn't bother with it, but it's obviously not a tool one would base long term decisions on. There are far more valuable academic affiliations to be had. The AAU is one of them and Texas already has that.

I actually did not intend to comment on this thread right now, but this did catch my attention. But I think there’s something else at play here. Remember that article that said USC was highly displeased at how the PAC 12 Network was doing?? Hold on to that memory for a moment. Now remember about Disney’s offer to take over 21st Century Fox movie studios and all that. Who owns the Big Ten Network?? Fox. I didn’t realize this at the time, but Disney may have had a twofold reason in doing what they did. One reason is what we all know about; the other, IMO, is not as obvious: I believe Disney/ESPN wants to buy the PAC12 Network, but they wanted to be sure that Fox had no interest in doing so themselves due to their part ownership of the Big Ten Network (the Big Ten-Pac 12 relationship). Knowing how indebted that network is, I believe Fox told Disney “go for it. We aren’t interested.” I believe it will be a matter of time before ESPN gobbles up the PAC 12 Network, thus making USC & the rest of the PAC 12 very happy. Also, this will allow ESPN to do with UT/TAMU what they already do with UF/FSU, SCar/Clem, UK/UL, UGA/GT, thus maximizing their profit on both schools.
07-10-2018 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,746
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #50
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-10-2018 12:23 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I actually did not intend to comment on this thread right now, but this did catch my attention. But I think there’s something else at play here. Remember that article that said USC was highly displeased at how the PAC 12 Network was doing?? Hold on to that memory for a moment. Now remember about Disney’s offer to take over 21st Century Fox movie studios and all that. Who owns the Big Ten Network?? Fox. I didn’t realize this at the time, but Disney may have had a twofold reason in doing what they did. One reason is what we all know about; the other, IMO, is not as obvious: I believe Disney/ESPN wants to buy the PAC12 Network, but they wanted to be sure that Fox had no interest in doing so themselves due to their part ownership of the Big Ten Network (the Big Ten-Pac 12 relationship). Knowing how indebted that network is, I believe Fox told Disney “go for it. We aren’t interested.” I believe it will be a matter of time before ESPN gobbles up the PAC 12 Network, thus making USC & the rest of the PAC 12 very happy. Also, this will allow ESPN to do with UT/TAMU what they already do with UF/FSU, SCar/Clem, UK/UL, UGA/GT, thus maximizing their profit on both schools.

With FOX dumping all their RSNs, I would imagine they'll focus on big time events and pro leagues rather than accumulating as many rights as they can get.

I wouldn't even be shocked to see them sell their share of the BTN in the not too distant future.

In other words, ESPN might be the only legitimate buyer for an entity like the PAC Network at this point.
07-10-2018 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #51
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-10-2018 10:04 AM)Saint Bulldog Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 01:58 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Baylor

I agree that Texas would not play nice in the SEC because they cannot run things like they have in the old SWC and the Big 12.
I cannot see the SEC taking Baylor, under any circumstance. I also do not see Okie State coming with Oklahoma, because we do not need them. I do think they want to nail down the Dallas-Fort Worth Market and OU can do that for them. If they do not want to come without OSU then move to TCU (or, dare I say, even SMU) to nail down the market. Then we bring in Kansas.
After that, the SEC waits. It is no secret that the "powers that be" have wanted a school from North Carolina and Virginia. Could you imagine a SEC Basketball tournament with UNC, UK and KU? SEC basketball would rival SEC football. And the TV money would flow into the SEC coffers.

Do the math. Oklahoma even with Oklahoma State is worth more to the SEC than Kansas and T.C.U. put together. It's really not even close. Certainly we would rather have another partner for OU, but we are not going to take anyone from the Big 12 if Texas or Oklahoma isn't attached to them.

And all of this love of basketball baffles me. It's worth 20 cents on the dollar compared to football. It would take 5 Kansas's to equal one Oklahoma in economic impact and at the top of this page you will find the WSJ's estimations of the economic impact of these schools.

North Carolina was only interesting to the SEC when the market footprint model was paying out based on the number of subscribers within a market, whether they watched or not.

There is nothing of value in the Big 12 outside of Texas and Oklahoma. The only way Kansas gets an invite is if they are tagging along with one of those two. It is a state of 2.9 million people with serious economic issues in a non growth region, and they have precious little in common with us.

What they do have going for them is AAU status and Basketball. The only reason I think they compliment Texas well is because they are both AAU, both brands within their sport, and because Kansas provides the Western division with their Vanderbilt so that the football competition isn't totally cannibalistic.

We aren't taking Baylor with anyone. And the reason Texas doesn't play "nicely" is because they bring a 1.25 billion dollar economic impact with them. But more importantly because they have always had other Texas schools in tow. If they came with Oklahoma or Kansas their only Texas partner would be their arch rivals from College Station. Texas in a 16 member SEC doesn't have a voting block strong enough to pass or block legislation. But they would deliver larger ad rates to the SEC for its presence in Texas and that makes us all more money.

As for the economic impact of the 2nd school that we would need to take, other than Oklahoma you could put Kansas, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, and T.C.U. in a bucket and it wouldn't matter much which one you pulled out. Their economic impact numbers vary somewhat significantly but Oklahoma State's is the highest. Look at their revenue totals and they are all within about 5 million of each other in annual total revenue.

These decisions aren't going to be based on anything but the bottom line. And to know the bottom line is to know what is possible, and what is not. Entering into these decisions will be factors such as travel potential, distance because it affects the overhead of all of our schools for minor sports, and academic standing which is not the deciding factor but it is a contributing one and Texas is solid there.

Whoever gets either Texas or Oklahoma cements their standing in revenue at the top spot. Right now (TV media included) the SEC is the leader in total revenue by 15 million over the Big 10 on average per school. If we get just one of those two schools we will not be caught by the Big 10. That's the biggest reason they are pushing so hard for Oklahoma. They know that Texas would be a no for them. That means to remain competitive with the SEC they have to get Oklahoma. And they are hoping if they do get Oklahoma that Texas will follow.

So if Oklahoma will come to the SEC but only with State, you had better listen to Finebaum, Cowherd, and a whole host of other beat writers on that one because it is a cinching move by the SEC to take them. It closes off Texas and leaves only Kansas to the Big 10, a state where they already carry the major media markets without the Jayhawks. No Oklahoma, no Kansas to the Big 10.

As a brand there is more earning potential in Oklahoma than there is in Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia combined. Under the old model where we got paid by those who had cable in a state it was different. Not now!

If the SEC wants Texas the taking of Oklahoma is perhaps the soundest move we could make, unless as I suggested in the OP Texas has done some strategy work and has realized that nothing puts them back on top of the game quicker than a move to the SEC. With Texas then Oklahoma becomes a nice school to have, but certainly not a necessity. With Texas, then it becomes possible to take a secondary school from a non duplicated market, unless the Horns insist on Texas Tech, which in my opinion they would be foolish to do, but that certainly may not apply to the Texas legislature. But even with Tech the Horns couldn't control our voting.

Why does the Big 10 spend so much propaganda on the Oklahoma situation? Because they can't catch us if we get them. The Big 10 could add Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech and not equal that move. They could only get close with a combination of Notre Dame, North Carolina and Virginia. And what they ultimately fear is that Oklahoma in the SEC would eventually lead to Texas and then the power of NCAA athletics would be formidably and solidly in the control of the SEC.

And what's more an SEC with that kind of revenue, if it desired, could attract the AAU schools of the ACC and start to rival the clout that the Big 10 has within that organization and at a time when the census will be awarding more house seats to the growing Southern and Southwestern states that's a major concern of theirs and the only reason they really want into North Carolina and Virginia where if those house seats were split in loyalty enough votes could be siphoned off to help them keep an advantage in seeking appropriations.

Now that's what it is all about. It sure as hell isn't about whether somebody plays nice, or bias against a second state school from Oklahoma. It is why college presidents get involved because it affects budget process, academic clout, and money on many levels beyond just athletics.

So the SEC will go after this, well at least Slive would have, with the intent to close this deal and put realignment behind us in a way that gives us every advantage in every area moving forward and that means we will go to the mat to land one or both of Oklahoma and Texas whether move involves 2 schools (preferable) or 4.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2018 01:15 PM by JRsec.)
07-10-2018 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #52
RE: What if Texas.............
Just for the Record here are the numbers: The Big 12 is in Black and the ACC is in Green/SEC AVERAGE is in Red:

Big 12 Attendance:
Texas: 92,778
Oklahoma: 86,520
Clemson: 80,773
SEC AVG: 75,074
Florida State: 70,943
Virginia Tech: 63,214
Miami: 58,682
Iowa State: 57,931
N.C. State: 56,850
Oklahoma State: 56,790
West Virginia: 55,946
Texas Tech: 55,065
Kansas State: 51,301
North Carolina: 50,071
Georgia Tech: 46,885
T.C.U.: 44,080
Baylor: 43,830
Virginia: 39,398
Duke: 26,797
Kansas: 26,641




Wall Street Journal Valuations for Football:
Texas: $1,243,124,000
Oklahoma: $1,001,967,000
SEC AVG: $523,416,428
Florida State: $385,339,000
Clemson: $328,411,000
Oklahoma State: $285,293,000
Kansas State: $277,203,000
Virginia Tech: $269,883,000
Miami: $254,502,000
Texas Tech: $246,871,000
Georgia Tech: $212,068,000
Iowa State: $196,973,000
N.C. State: $191,813,000
Kansas: $183,031,000
Virginia: $168,534,000
T.C.U.: $153,631,000
North Carolina: $147,179,000
Baylor: $103,591,000
West Virginia: $72,649,000
Duke: $64,195,000[/color]



Wall Street Journal Basketball Valuations:
Kansas: $191,000,000
Duke: $169,000,000
North Carolina: $118,900,000
Texas: $77,100,000
SEC AVG: $71,035,000
Oklahoma State: $68,200,000
Iowa State: $62,800,000
Oklahoma: $58,200,000
Clemson: $58,100,000
N.C. State: $57,500,000
Kansas State: $56,200,000
Miami: $50,800,000
Virginia: $49,800,000
Florida State: $46,000,000
T.C.U.: $39,700,00
Virginia Tech: $37,900,000
Baylor: $34,400,000
Texas Tech: $34,200,000
West Virginia: $33,500,000
Georgia Tech: $27,700,000


Combined WSJ Football & Basketball Valuations:
Texas: $1,320,224,000
Oklahoma: $1,060,167,000
SEC AVG: $594,451,000
Florida State: $431,339,000
Clemson: $386,511,000
Kansas: $374,031,000
Oklahoma State: $353,493,000
Kansas State: $333,403,000
Virginia Tech: $307,783,000
Miami: $305,302,000
North Carolina: $266,079,000
Iowa State: $259,773,000
N.C. State: $254,473,000
Texas Tech: $250,291,000
Georgia Tech: $239,768,000
Duke: $233,195,000
Virginia: $218,334,000
T.C.U.: $153,670,000
Baylor: $137,991,000
West Virginia: $106,149,000



GROSS TOTAL REVENUE:
Texas: $214,830,647
Oklahoma: $155,238,481
Florida State: $144,514,413
SEC AVG: $137,621061
Clemson: $112,600,964
West Virginia: $110,565,870
T.C.U.: $105,055,587
Duke: $100,480,206
Baylor: $98,125,426
North Carolina: $96,540,823
Kansas: $95,251,461
Virginia: $92,865,175
Oklahoma State: $91,644,865
Miami: $89,135,175
Texas Tech: $88,804,476
Virginia Tech: $87,427,526
Kansas State: $86,081,528
N.C. State: $83,741,572
Iowa State: $82,659,447
Georgia Tech: $81,762,024



So What the Heck Does This Mean? It Means the Following Pairs Earn the SEC More:
The pair are averaged for 1 value that must exceed $594,451,000
1. Texas & Oklahoma: $1,190,195,500
2. Texas & Kansas: $847,127,500
3. Texas & Kansas State: $826,813,500
4. Texas & Iowa State: $789,998,500
5. Texas & Texas Tech: $785,257,500
6. Oklahoma & Kansas: $717,099,000
7. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State: $706,830,000
8. Oklahoma & Kansas State: $696,785,000


So if you want to talk about workable pairs there they are.

And just maybe if Kansas and Oklahoma are headed to the Big 10 then Texas and any of the top 5 pairings can earn the SEC even more!





Now I want everyone to take some time and look at these numbers. This is what matters.

The attendance numbers translate into travel revenue and are illustrative of what to expect in the way of a TV following and indicative of economic impact numbers.

Gross Total Revenue shows not only what the school has made from ticket sales, concessions, merchandise sales, licensing fees, all forms of media, and donations for tickets, and donations in general, but it is highly reflective of the overall strength of a program and more importantly its likely longevity.

The Football and Basketball Impact numbers from the WSJ show how much impact economically that the brand has in its region. You will note how low Duke's and WVU's numbers are. Sure they have good product, but that doesn't seem to translate into the ability of others to make money off of them which means low interest in advertising which unfortunately drives the TV revenue bus.

I also want you to note just how damned low and insignificant the Basketball money truly is. And furthermore note the SEC's average here versus some of those schools from "basketball" conferences. This is why Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Duke just aren't worth the effort for athletic revenue.

Now the Presidents may one day like to have their association and perhaps they get added at some point for that. But from a sports revenue standpoint there are only two teams in the Big 12 we profit by adding and only two in the ACC that are potentially profitable: Texas and Oklahoma who are so profitable they could each bring a tag along and Clemson and Florida State who might make it in on their own steam.

And that boys and girls is the long and short of realignment prospects that the SEC would be interested in.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2018 10:16 PM by JRsec.)
07-10-2018 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,746
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #53
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-10-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So What the Heck Does This Mean? It Means the Following Pairs Earn the SEC More:
The pair are averaged for 1 value that must exceed $594,451,000
1. Texas & Oklahoma: $1,190,195,500
2. Texas & Kansas: $847,127,500
3. Texas & Kansas State: $826,813,500
4. Texas & Iowa State: $789,998,500
5. Texas & Texas Tech: $785,257,500
6. Oklahoma & Kansas: $717,099,000
7. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State: $706,830,000
8. Oklahoma & Kansas State: $696,785,000


So if you want to talk about workable pairs there they are.

And just maybe if Kansas and Oklahoma are headed to the Big 10 then Texas and any of the top 5 pairings can earn the SEC even more!

There is a wildcard, however, and that's what any network decides we're worth in a given negotiation.

Technically, our 1st Tier is undervalued right now or this would be less of a factor, but the Big Ten is taking down more TV revenue at the moment. Last time, they added a couple of schools that did not meet their averages and were actually rewarded for it by the networks. Based on how the ratings broke down, there's honestly no good reason for that unless we consider the conference is leaving money on the table.

ESPN and FOX combined on a strong bid for the Big Ten because they decided the content was worth that much to them. It sounds arbitrary, but the market decided the value.

Whether the 'market model' as we understood it has died or not, we should consider that ESPN is using us because they can. They suggested Missouri because they wanted that market in the fold, not because adding Mizzou in a vacuum would add to our bottom line. They don't really care about our bottom line. From ESPN's perspective, they would rather our product be cheaper while maintaining quality because they'll pretty much make the same amount of money either way.

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly the only programs that pad the bottom line without fancy negotiation tactics or threatening to take our product elsewhere. That's why I suggest pulling out all the stops to get them and if that means adding a few more then I have no problem with that.

Ideally, we would take those 2 and go to 16. Ideally, we would present that 16 to ESPN and they would pay us what we're worth. But the biggest problem is that ESPN doesn't care what we're worth. They only care about what they can get out of us. They're a private enterprise and that's why they exist.

That and we've shot for plenty of ideals in the past and haven't achieved them. So I think we should stop listening to what ESPN tells us is valuable in the marketplace and start crafting our own path. As the number of bidders grow, the ability to garner a favorable deal from ESPN or someone else grows if we consolidate to a greater degree. But we have to do it on our terms and not at the behest of a corporation.

And I know TV revenue is not the only or most significant stream of cash, but it's the only stream that's going to grow with additions. Other sources like donations and tickets can't grow much more without pricing fans out and then we haven't really entered a state of growth at that point. That and we don't share ticket or merchandize revenue anyway so there's no pot to be grown in that regard.

The only pots we can grow come from TV revenue and postseason disbursements which is another avenue we need control over once again.

So if taking a few extra schools are necessary to make OU and UT comfortable then I think we should do it, but the last thing we need to be doing is obeying the dictates of media companies because they don't have our best interests at heart.

I think if it's left up to ESPN then they would send Texas somewhere else so we don't become more powerful. And that's the big tell...they don't want us to have content that causes our leverage to grow in a negotiation.
07-10-2018 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #54
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-10-2018 11:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So What the Heck Does This Mean? It Means the Following Pairs Earn the SEC More:
The pair are averaged for 1 value that must exceed $594,451,000
1. Texas & Oklahoma: $1,190,195,500
2. Texas & Kansas: $847,127,500
3. Texas & Kansas State: $826,813,500
4. Texas & Iowa State: $789,998,500
5. Texas & Texas Tech: $785,257,500
6. Oklahoma & Kansas: $717,099,000
7. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State: $706,830,000
8. Oklahoma & Kansas State: $696,785,000


So if you want to talk about workable pairs there they are.

And just maybe if Kansas and Oklahoma are headed to the Big 10 then Texas and any of the top 5 pairings can earn the SEC even more!

There is a wildcard, however, and that's what any network decides we're worth in a given negotiation.

Technically, our 1st Tier is undervalued right now or this would be less of a factor, but the Big Ten is taking down more TV revenue at the moment. Last time, they added a couple of schools that did not meet their averages and were actually rewarded for it by the networks. Based on how the ratings broke down, there's honestly no good reason for that unless we consider the conference is leaving money on the table.

ESPN and FOX combined on a strong bid for the Big Ten because they decided the content was worth that much to them. It sounds arbitrary, but the market decided the value.

Whether the 'market model' as we understood it has died or not, we should consider that ESPN is using us because they can. They suggested Missouri because they wanted that market in the fold, not because adding Mizzou in a vacuum would add to our bottom line. They don't really care about our bottom line. From ESPN's perspective, they would rather our product be cheaper while maintaining quality because they'll pretty much make the same amount of money either way.

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly the only programs that pad the bottom line without fancy negotiation tactics or threatening to take our product elsewhere. That's why I suggest pulling out all the stops to get them and if that means adding a few more then I have no problem with that.

Ideally, we would take those 2 and go to 16. Ideally, we would present that 16 to ESPN and they would pay us what we're worth. But the biggest problem is that ESPN doesn't care what we're worth. They only care about what they can get out of us. They're a private enterprise and that's why they exist.

That and we've shot for plenty of ideals in the past and haven't achieved them. So I think we should stop listening to what ESPN tells us is valuable in the marketplace and start crafting our own path. As the number of bidders grow, the ability to garner a favorable deal from ESPN or someone else grows if we consolidate to a greater degree. But we have to do it on our terms and not at the behest of a corporation.

And I know TV revenue is not the only or most significant stream of cash, but it's the only stream that's going to grow with additions. Other sources like donations and tickets can't grow much more without pricing fans out and then we haven't really entered a state of growth at that point. That and we don't share ticket or merchandize revenue anyway so there's no pot to be grown in that regard.

The only pots we can grow come from TV revenue and postseason disbursements which is another avenue we need control over once again.

So if taking a few extra schools are necessary to make OU and UT comfortable then I think we should do it, but the last thing we need to be doing is obeying the dictates of media companies because they don't have our best interests at heart.

I think if it's left up to ESPN then they would send Texas somewhere else so we don't become more powerful. And that's the big tell...they don't want us to have content that causes our leverage to grow in a negotiation.

I agree with most of what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that we can't pay Texas and Oklahoma if ESPN doesn't pay us.

IMO, if ESPN wanted their half of the Big 10 that badly and they don't reward us we should kick them to the curb and move on. But we are tied down there until 2031. There's no way in hell we should sell them our T1.

I have my doubts about the Big 10 contract coming up. If FOX is out they could wind up really screwing themselves by prematurely getting into streaming. The quality isn't that great and the aggravation of logging in isn't going to be a beloved feature. We will get there, but probably not for another 5 plus years. I have no problem with offering 2 more to get OU and Texas, as they pay the way for it.

IMO opinion I'm not going to worry about it. If ESPN screws us over then in 2031 they lose the SEC for good and then anyone who wishes will pick apart their 100% possession, the ACC which they have starved.

BTW: Remember the valuations are from the WSJ, not ESPN.
07-10-2018 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,872
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #55
RE: What if Texas.............
Great post JR.

So ideally if the SEC grabbed OU and OSU, then the next most profitable combination of schools would be Texas and KU. That would make for a really nice Division of six schools from the SWC and Big 8.

Scheduling could still be an issue, but that conference would feel natural.

Also, you said the ability for a fanbase to travel to away venues was a factor in the WSJ’s evacuation. How much more valuable would West Virginia be if they boarded their conference mates or estimated value in the SEC?
07-11-2018 01:45 AM
Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,746
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #56
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-10-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 11:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So What the Heck Does This Mean? It Means the Following Pairs Earn the SEC More:
The pair are averaged for 1 value that must exceed $594,451,000
1. Texas & Oklahoma: $1,190,195,500
2. Texas & Kansas: $847,127,500
3. Texas & Kansas State: $826,813,500
4. Texas & Iowa State: $789,998,500
5. Texas & Texas Tech: $785,257,500
6. Oklahoma & Kansas: $717,099,000
7. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State: $706,830,000
8. Oklahoma & Kansas State: $696,785,000


So if you want to talk about workable pairs there they are.

And just maybe if Kansas and Oklahoma are headed to the Big 10 then Texas and any of the top 5 pairings can earn the SEC even more!

There is a wildcard, however, and that's what any network decides we're worth in a given negotiation.

Technically, our 1st Tier is undervalued right now or this would be less of a factor, but the Big Ten is taking down more TV revenue at the moment. Last time, they added a couple of schools that did not meet their averages and were actually rewarded for it by the networks. Based on how the ratings broke down, there's honestly no good reason for that unless we consider the conference is leaving money on the table.

ESPN and FOX combined on a strong bid for the Big Ten because they decided the content was worth that much to them. It sounds arbitrary, but the market decided the value.

Whether the 'market model' as we understood it has died or not, we should consider that ESPN is using us because they can. They suggested Missouri because they wanted that market in the fold, not because adding Mizzou in a vacuum would add to our bottom line. They don't really care about our bottom line. From ESPN's perspective, they would rather our product be cheaper while maintaining quality because they'll pretty much make the same amount of money either way.

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly the only programs that pad the bottom line without fancy negotiation tactics or threatening to take our product elsewhere. That's why I suggest pulling out all the stops to get them and if that means adding a few more then I have no problem with that.

Ideally, we would take those 2 and go to 16. Ideally, we would present that 16 to ESPN and they would pay us what we're worth. But the biggest problem is that ESPN doesn't care what we're worth. They only care about what they can get out of us. They're a private enterprise and that's why they exist.

That and we've shot for plenty of ideals in the past and haven't achieved them. So I think we should stop listening to what ESPN tells us is valuable in the marketplace and start crafting our own path. As the number of bidders grow, the ability to garner a favorable deal from ESPN or someone else grows if we consolidate to a greater degree. But we have to do it on our terms and not at the behest of a corporation.

And I know TV revenue is not the only or most significant stream of cash, but it's the only stream that's going to grow with additions. Other sources like donations and tickets can't grow much more without pricing fans out and then we haven't really entered a state of growth at that point. That and we don't share ticket or merchandize revenue anyway so there's no pot to be grown in that regard.

The only pots we can grow come from TV revenue and postseason disbursements which is another avenue we need control over once again.

So if taking a few extra schools are necessary to make OU and UT comfortable then I think we should do it, but the last thing we need to be doing is obeying the dictates of media companies because they don't have our best interests at heart.

I think if it's left up to ESPN then they would send Texas somewhere else so we don't become more powerful. And that's the big tell...they don't want us to have content that causes our leverage to grow in a negotiation.

I agree with most of what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that we can't pay Texas and Oklahoma if ESPN doesn't pay us.

IMO, if ESPN wanted their half of the Big 10 that badly and they don't reward us we should kick them to the curb and move on. But we are tied down there until 2031. There's no way in hell we should sell them our T1.

I have my doubts about the Big 10 contract coming up. If FOX is out they could wind up really screwing themselves by prematurely getting into streaming. The quality isn't that great and the aggravation of logging in isn't going to be a beloved feature. We will get there, but probably not for another 5 plus years. I have no problem with offering 2 more to get OU and Texas, as they pay the way for it.

IMO opinion I'm not going to worry about it. If ESPN screws us over then in 2031 they lose the SEC for good and then anyone who wishes will pick apart their 100% possession, the ACC which they have starved.

BTW: Remember the valuations are from the WSJ, not ESPN.

True, but ESPN's metrics in determining what they're willing to pay may be very different. At least, they may be different in that ESPN's model is based purely on how they would ensure their own profit.

The WSJ valuations are based on what these programs would be worth if sold individually on the open market like a pro franchise, but that sort of transaction would never happen. I'm not saying the valuations aren't relevant, just that a media company wouldn't necessarily value a property according to all the same metrics.

The hard and fast rule we can count on is that networks will pay for quality content and large fan bases. If a school has both then that's of huge value to a network. ESPN and FOX have been willing to pay the Big 12 a disproportionate amount simply because 2 of their programs are among the elite in that regard. This is true despite some leaders within the Big 12 saying their conference is basically the Mountain West without OU and UT. Even then, it was true despite 4 quality schools leaving and the Big 12 not having any real leverage in a negotiation at the time.

So if OU and UT wanted us to go to 20 with specific programs then I think it's worth it. Making them comfortable would increase the likelihood that they move our direction and stay there. It might not take 20, of course, but I think we should be open to that. If we grab all the best free agents then we take the ball out of ESPN's court to a significant degree.

I do agree that we'll be fine in the long term even if ESPN screws us, but I would just rather not give them the chance to screw us.
07-11-2018 05:43 AM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #57
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 05:43 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 11:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-10-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So What the Heck Does This Mean? It Means the Following Pairs Earn the SEC More:
The pair are averaged for 1 value that must exceed $594,451,000
1. Texas & Oklahoma: $1,190,195,500
2. Texas & Kansas: $847,127,500
3. Texas & Kansas State: $826,813,500
4. Texas & Iowa State: $789,998,500
5. Texas & Texas Tech: $785,257,500
6. Oklahoma & Kansas: $717,099,000
7. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State: $706,830,000
8. Oklahoma & Kansas State: $696,785,000


So if you want to talk about workable pairs there they are.

And just maybe if Kansas and Oklahoma are headed to the Big 10 then Texas and any of the top 5 pairings can earn the SEC even more!

There is a wildcard, however, and that's what any network decides we're worth in a given negotiation.

Technically, our 1st Tier is undervalued right now or this would be less of a factor, but the Big Ten is taking down more TV revenue at the moment. Last time, they added a couple of schools that did not meet their averages and were actually rewarded for it by the networks. Based on how the ratings broke down, there's honestly no good reason for that unless we consider the conference is leaving money on the table.

ESPN and FOX combined on a strong bid for the Big Ten because they decided the content was worth that much to them. It sounds arbitrary, but the market decided the value.

Whether the 'market model' as we understood it has died or not, we should consider that ESPN is using us because they can. They suggested Missouri because they wanted that market in the fold, not because adding Mizzou in a vacuum would add to our bottom line. They don't really care about our bottom line. From ESPN's perspective, they would rather our product be cheaper while maintaining quality because they'll pretty much make the same amount of money either way.

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly the only programs that pad the bottom line without fancy negotiation tactics or threatening to take our product elsewhere. That's why I suggest pulling out all the stops to get them and if that means adding a few more then I have no problem with that.

Ideally, we would take those 2 and go to 16. Ideally, we would present that 16 to ESPN and they would pay us what we're worth. But the biggest problem is that ESPN doesn't care what we're worth. They only care about what they can get out of us. They're a private enterprise and that's why they exist.

That and we've shot for plenty of ideals in the past and haven't achieved them. So I think we should stop listening to what ESPN tells us is valuable in the marketplace and start crafting our own path. As the number of bidders grow, the ability to garner a favorable deal from ESPN or someone else grows if we consolidate to a greater degree. But we have to do it on our terms and not at the behest of a corporation.

And I know TV revenue is not the only or most significant stream of cash, but it's the only stream that's going to grow with additions. Other sources like donations and tickets can't grow much more without pricing fans out and then we haven't really entered a state of growth at that point. That and we don't share ticket or merchandize revenue anyway so there's no pot to be grown in that regard.

The only pots we can grow come from TV revenue and postseason disbursements which is another avenue we need control over once again.

So if taking a few extra schools are necessary to make OU and UT comfortable then I think we should do it, but the last thing we need to be doing is obeying the dictates of media companies because they don't have our best interests at heart.

I think if it's left up to ESPN then they would send Texas somewhere else so we don't become more powerful. And that's the big tell...they don't want us to have content that causes our leverage to grow in a negotiation.

I agree with most of what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that we can't pay Texas and Oklahoma if ESPN doesn't pay us.

IMO, if ESPN wanted their half of the Big 10 that badly and they don't reward us we should kick them to the curb and move on. But we are tied down there until 2031. There's no way in hell we should sell them our T1.

I have my doubts about the Big 10 contract coming up. If FOX is out they could wind up really screwing themselves by prematurely getting into streaming. The quality isn't that great and the aggravation of logging in isn't going to be a beloved feature. We will get there, but probably not for another 5 plus years. I have no problem with offering 2 more to get OU and Texas, as they pay the way for it.

IMO opinion I'm not going to worry about it. If ESPN screws us over then in 2031 they lose the SEC for good and then anyone who wishes will pick apart their 100% possession, the ACC which they have starved.

BTW: Remember the valuations are from the WSJ, not ESPN.

True, but ESPN's metrics in determining what they're willing to pay may be very different. At least, they may be different in that ESPN's model is based purely on how they would ensure their own profit.

The WSJ valuations are based on what these programs would be worth if sold individually on the open market like a pro franchise, but that sort of transaction would never happen. I'm not saying the valuations aren't relevant, just that a media company wouldn't necessarily value a property according to all the same metrics.

The hard and fast rule we can count on is that networks will pay for quality content and large fan bases. If a school has both then that's of huge value to a network. ESPN and FOX have been willing to pay the Big 12 a disproportionate amount simply because 2 of their programs are among the elite in that regard. This is true despite some leaders within the Big 12 saying their conference is basically the Mountain West without OU and UT. Even then, it was true despite 4 quality schools leaving and the Big 12 not having any real leverage in a negotiation at the time.

So if OU and UT wanted us to go to 20 with specific programs then I think it's worth it. Making them comfortable would increase the likelihood that they move our direction and stay there. It might not take 20, of course, but I think we should be open to that. If we grab all the best free agents then we take the ball out of ESPN's court to a significant degree.

I do agree that we'll be fine in the long term even if ESPN screws us, but I would just rather not give them the chance to screw us.

What you are missing in this line of thinking is that we are under contract with ESPN until 2031 for T2 & T3 rights. That means we don't get paid by anyone else to place that content on the open market until then. At least we can get a new check on T1 rights in 2024. So the problem ATU is that if ESPN won't monetize it, we're screwed when it comes to making our own deal. The SEC as wealthy as it is can't take those schools unless somebody is going to pay for it.

The only way around it would be for the SEC to dissolve, take those 6 schools you are talking about, and reconstitute itself as a new entity and then sell the rights which is what the Big 12 did when the SWC and Big 8 folded. That comes at a price as well since "SEC" is such a recognized brand title.

This is what happens when a bunch if business ignorant presidents hire a sports contract lawyer who only had worked for networks to advise them. What they saw as securing a long range revenue stream comes at a price. Your hands are tied if the your business partner doesn't wish for you to add schools or build revenue value that they have to pay for.

It has murdered the ACC, has hampered the SEC twice now, kept the Big 10 on hold until FOX slung some money their way in an effort to be relevant. The only thing that makes that look acceptable is that the PAC trying to go it on their own screwed up even worse, mostly due to the fact that college presidents (notoriously lousy business people who live off of COLA's don't know how to operate a profitable budget because their money comes from state apportionment and they live wealthier than most while not having one damn clue about how money operates) were in control. There's never been a more valuable commercial product in the hands of more incompetent businessmen than college football.

Now if you want to at least test the feasibility of 6 schools from the Big 12 being of value for the SEC then average their total worth and see if the number passes the baseline of profitability I set up in the post listing all of the numbers and where teams stood. Remember I was average two schools to obtain those numbers but clearly we could take 4 and turn a profit. I haven't averaged for 6. If there are 6 whose average exceeds a value of $594,451,000 then it is possible, but the closer we get to that number the less we make.

NOTE: I did the averaging for you and we could take 6 and make it work. But the schools would be limited to these: Required to make it work: Texas and Oklahoma. With 4 of these 5 schools: Kansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech.

So it is possible to make a slight profit by taking Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Kansas State.


The only way we could even consider this is if we were absolutely guaranteed that nothing from the ACC would ever come available. While little there is profitable, there are some we would have to take to protect the integrity of our footprint should they ever be vulnerable: Florida State, Clemson, and possibly Georgia Tech.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2018 09:52 AM by JRsec.)
07-11-2018 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,865
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 165
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #58
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-06-2018 07:49 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I remember years back when the "Kickoff Classic" opened the college football season. One year, there was a match-up between highly ranked Florida State and Kansas. It was no contest, FSU dominated and had an easy win. After the game, Coach Bobby Bowden was pointed in saying, paraphrasing, that Kansas was too underdeveloped to be playing at the level FSU does. Since that time, Kansas has demonstrated little to nothing in sustained success.

I recall the days when Kansas did produce some good seasons and had appeared in the Orange Bowl. Still, they have little to show as fb success in recent times. And short periods when they did well, often came between extended droughts in having winning seasons.

I am not saying Kansas is unworthy of serious SEC consideration if it comes to that. Change in results can happen. However, the SEC would need to go into this recognizing Kansas would probably be more of a regular bottom-feeder in football, rather than a powerhouse.
Being a flag-ship school with AAU membership, and having solid and sustained basketball success at the highest level, are very desirable features. But if having football pedigree is the utmost factor for a valued selection, better choices would be out there.
Current competitive accomplishments should not play into long-term decisions regarding realignment. In five years Kansas might be 11-1 again, and their BB will never falter. I would like to have Maryland and Rutgers entered into the record. The B1G was thinking long-term. We should too. 04-cheers
07-11-2018 12:55 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #59
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 12:55 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(07-06-2018 07:49 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I remember years back when the "Kickoff Classic" opened the college football season. One year, there was a match-up between highly ranked Florida State and Kansas. It was no contest, FSU dominated and had an easy win. After the game, Coach Bobby Bowden was pointed in saying, paraphrasing, that Kansas was too underdeveloped to be playing at the level FSU does. Since that time, Kansas has demonstrated little to nothing in sustained success.

I recall the days when Kansas did produce some good seasons and had appeared in the Orange Bowl. Still, they have little to show as fb success in recent times. And short periods when they did well, often came between extended droughts in having winning seasons.

I am not saying Kansas is unworthy of serious SEC consideration if it comes to that. Change in results can happen. However, the SEC would need to go into this recognizing Kansas would probably be more of a regular bottom-feeder in football, rather than a powerhouse.
Being a flag-ship school with AAU membership, and having solid and sustained basketball success at the highest level, are very desirable features. But if having football pedigree is the utmost factor for a valued selection, better choices would be out there.
Current competitive accomplishments should not play into long-term decisions regarding realignment. In five years Kansas might be 11-1 again, and their BB will never falter. I would like to have Maryland and Rutgers entered into the record. The B1G was thinking long-term. We should too. 04-cheers

Long term Texas and Oklahoma trump anything else period. And Medic long term Rutgers and Maryland two debt plagued programs may yet prove to be a huge bust. They are "only" valuable while the cable subscription model lingers. The Big 10 was simply overpaid last time around by FOX trying to pry away relevant product from ESPN.
07-11-2018 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,513
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1146
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #60
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 01:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 was simply overpaid last time around by FOX trying to pry away relevant product from ESPN.

^^^ THIS ^^^
07-11-2018 02:57 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2023 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, © 2002-2023 MyBB Group.