Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
What if Texas.............
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,953
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 736
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #61
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-06-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-06-2018 03:12 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Would a Texas/Kansas combination acceptance possibly "force" Oklahoma into the SEC rather than being an "outpost" in the B1G (assuming a B1G offer to them)? Would the SEC be willing to move to 18 to accommodate OU and one other (possibly WVa or OSU) IF (and that I believe it is a BIG if) Texas/.Kansas went SEC? And, IF KU was offered BOTH the B1G & SEC, who would they choose...and why (may depend on who they would be going with to where)?

I think that depends on Texas's motives. There would be much to the scenario as presented that would be Horn friendly. One question that comes to mind is whether Kansas basketball, as a brand, is worth more to the Big 10, or to the SEC? A follow up question might be how special would Kansas basketball be in a deep and above average Big 10? How much would their special elite status be worth with a natural elite rival like Kentucky to the SEC? I'm saying there are easy answers there because there are not. But KU/UK would be as iconic and elite as UNC/Duke the only thing they would lack is that cross town feel to the rivalry.

But to answer your question it very well could force OU into asking in. I guess my answer would be how much would Texas actually want them in house when Texas gains so much advantage by keeping them at arms length?

An SEC with Texas and A&M doesn't need OU's market reach. Their brand would be great to have, but we would own DFW and therefore OU's worth to us is simply their national brand and content plus a small state. I think the only way OSU is worth taking for us is if we can't land Texas because then we would need them to get Oklahoma and the share of DFW we want. With Texas the only added value for Oklahoma becomes their brand and content, but not worth enough to justify OSU. So at that point if we had UT & KU in hand and OU wanted in then WVU would be a reasonable next step, or dare I say it, ISU.

With WVU we get a better sports package. But with ISU the SEC acquires 3 new AAU members and 3 national brands.

But for ESPN that fails to accomplish some of its goals. They want Notre Dame all in. They want smaller conferences to keep us from gaining too much leverage. They want access to Texas football and Kansas basketball.

If the Big 10 did take OU and ISU and moved to 16 and the SEC did take UT & KU securing 2/3rds of ESPN's objectives, then it is only logical for W.V.U.to head to the ACC and for N.D. to agree to that slot. Why? They want New England and New York exposure. Pitt, B.C., and Syracuse give them that. They want academic exposure. Virginia, North Carolina and Duke give them that. They want Southern recruiting exposure. Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State and Miami give them that.

They can't find that combination in any other conference. A Big 10 with Oklahoma become a financial behemoth as does a SEC with Texas. The best way for N.D. to hang onto what they want outside of independence is to go all in to once again stabilize the ACC, and it would. WVU gives them added depth in the Big 3 sports and ultimately this forces a champs only P4 model for the CFP.

If OU heads to the SEC after the SEC has picked up UT and KU then it destabilizes the Big 10 and almost forces them to try to poach the ACC in which case it could cost ESPN not only N.D. eventually but the Carolina and Virginia markets as well if there were to be an all out Big 10 push with FOX money.

By sacrificing Oklahoma to the Big 10 and landing N.D. ESPN gets virtually everything they want without destabilizing the balance in the East.

Why not just stay at status quo and have those things?
07-11-2018 03:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,777
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4721
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #62
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(07-06-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-06-2018 03:12 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Would a Texas/Kansas combination acceptance possibly "force" Oklahoma into the SEC rather than being an "outpost" in the B1G (assuming a B1G offer to them)? Would the SEC be willing to move to 18 to accommodate OU and one other (possibly WVa or OSU) IF (and that I believe it is a BIG if) Texas/.Kansas went SEC? And, IF KU was offered BOTH the B1G & SEC, who would they choose...and why (may depend on who they would be going with to where)?

I think that depends on Texas's motives. There would be much to the scenario as presented that would be Horn friendly. One question that comes to mind is whether Kansas basketball, as a brand, is worth more to the Big 10, or to the SEC? A follow up question might be how special would Kansas basketball be in a deep and above average Big 10? How much would their special elite status be worth with a natural elite rival like Kentucky to the SEC? I'm saying there are easy answers there because there are not. But KU/UK would be as iconic and elite as UNC/Duke the only thing they would lack is that cross town feel to the rivalry.

But to answer your question it very well could force OU into asking in. I guess my answer would be how much would Texas actually want them in house when Texas gains so much advantage by keeping them at arms length?

An SEC with Texas and A&M doesn't need OU's market reach. Their brand would be great to have, but we would own DFW and therefore OU's worth to us is simply their national brand and content plus a small state. I think the only way OSU is worth taking for us is if we can't land Texas because then we would need them to get Oklahoma and the share of DFW we want. With Texas the only added value for Oklahoma becomes their brand and content, but not worth enough to justify OSU. So at that point if we had UT & KU in hand and OU wanted in then WVU would be a reasonable next step, or dare I say it, ISU.

With WVU we get a better sports package. But with ISU the SEC acquires 3 new AAU members and 3 national brands.

But for ESPN that fails to accomplish some of its goals. They want Notre Dame all in. They want smaller conferences to keep us from gaining too much leverage. They want access to Texas football and Kansas basketball.

If the Big 10 did take OU and ISU and moved to 16 and the SEC did take UT & KU securing 2/3rds of ESPN's objectives, then it is only logical for W.V.U.to head to the ACC and for N.D. to agree to that slot. Why? They want New England and New York exposure. Pitt, B.C., and Syracuse give them that. They want academic exposure. Virginia, North Carolina and Duke give them that. They want Southern recruiting exposure. Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State and Miami give them that.

They can't find that combination in any other conference. A Big 10 with Oklahoma become a financial behemoth as does a SEC with Texas. The best way for N.D. to hang onto what they want outside of independence is to go all in to once again stabilize the ACC, and it would. WVU gives them added depth in the Big 3 sports and ultimately this forces a champs only P4 model for the CFP.

If OU heads to the SEC after the SEC has picked up UT and KU then it destabilizes the Big 10 and almost forces them to try to poach the ACC in which case it could cost ESPN not only N.D. eventually but the Carolina and Virginia markets as well if there were to be an all out Big 10 push with FOX money.

By sacrificing Oklahoma to the Big 10 and landing N.D. ESPN gets virtually everything they want without destabilizing the balance in the East.

Why not just stay at status quo and have those things?
You probably could, at least until your current contract expired. Then your options legitimately will have changed if this scenario plays out.
07-11-2018 03:42 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: #63
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 01:45 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  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?

I think ideally what we should do is just go ahead and offer Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas and give Texas the option of adding either Kansas or Texas Tech as the fourth school and calling it a day at 18.

If Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State join the 4 schools' total valuation averaged is $746,043,750. If Texas takes Kansas it is even higher. We could easily live with either of those options.

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech / or Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

As for WVU they simply don't bring enough for us and it's not really even close when you look at all the numbers. They would add value to the ACC MEAN.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2018 04:11 PM by JRsec.)
07-11-2018 03:59 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: #64
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

It's a good point.

Basically the only way to expand our 1st Tier offerings would be to add more games, right? I could see us doing that, but there would still be a limit on our profitability from any expansion.

I could see a new suitor(not so much CBS) paying for OU and UT additions in a significant way, but we would be limited elsewhere.

Although I do think ESPN will try to wiggle Kansas in there somehow. If the Big Ten is remotely interested in those Midwestern products then I can see ESPN trying to "farm" them out somewhere else to make sure the B1G doesn't grow in influence.

I think the issue with the ACC schools is unless we're going to take almost all of them then there's no way to protect our territory from a Big Ten invasion. So it may be in our best interests to move West and allow the ACC to stay intact. That's another issue when it comes to dealing with ESPN. If they protect the ACC then whatever is to the West is all we've got.
07-11-2018 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,953
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 736
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #65
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 03:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(07-06-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-06-2018 03:12 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Would a Texas/Kansas combination acceptance possibly "force" Oklahoma into the SEC rather than being an "outpost" in the B1G (assuming a B1G offer to them)? Would the SEC be willing to move to 18 to accommodate OU and one other (possibly WVa or OSU) IF (and that I believe it is a BIG if) Texas/.Kansas went SEC? And, IF KU was offered BOTH the B1G & SEC, who would they choose...and why (may depend on who they would be going with to where)?

I think that depends on Texas's motives. There would be much to the scenario as presented that would be Horn friendly. One question that comes to mind is whether Kansas basketball, as a brand, is worth more to the Big 10, or to the SEC? A follow up question might be how special would Kansas basketball be in a deep and above average Big 10? How much would their special elite status be worth with a natural elite rival like Kentucky to the SEC? I'm saying there are easy answers there because there are not. But KU/UK would be as iconic and elite as UNC/Duke the only thing they would lack is that cross town feel to the rivalry.

But to answer your question it very well could force OU into asking in. I guess my answer would be how much would Texas actually want them in house when Texas gains so much advantage by keeping them at arms length?

An SEC with Texas and A&M doesn't need OU's market reach. Their brand would be great to have, but we would own DFW and therefore OU's worth to us is simply their national brand and content plus a small state. I think the only way OSU is worth taking for us is if we can't land Texas because then we would need them to get Oklahoma and the share of DFW we want. With Texas the only added value for Oklahoma becomes their brand and content, but not worth enough to justify OSU. So at that point if we had UT & KU in hand and OU wanted in then WVU would be a reasonable next step, or dare I say it, ISU.

With WVU we get a better sports package. But with ISU the SEC acquires 3 new AAU members and 3 national brands.

But for ESPN that fails to accomplish some of its goals. They want Notre Dame all in. They want smaller conferences to keep us from gaining too much leverage. They want access to Texas football and Kansas basketball.

If the Big 10 did take OU and ISU and moved to 16 and the SEC did take UT & KU securing 2/3rds of ESPN's objectives, then it is only logical for W.V.U.to head to the ACC and for N.D. to agree to that slot. Why? They want New England and New York exposure. Pitt, B.C., and Syracuse give them that. They want academic exposure. Virginia, North Carolina and Duke give them that. They want Southern recruiting exposure. Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State and Miami give them that.

They can't find that combination in any other conference. A Big 10 with Oklahoma become a financial behemoth as does a SEC with Texas. The best way for N.D. to hang onto what they want outside of independence is to go all in to once again stabilize the ACC, and it would. WVU gives them added depth in the Big 3 sports and ultimately this forces a champs only P4 model for the CFP.

If OU heads to the SEC after the SEC has picked up UT and KU then it destabilizes the Big 10 and almost forces them to try to poach the ACC in which case it could cost ESPN not only N.D. eventually but the Carolina and Virginia markets as well if there were to be an all out Big 10 push with FOX money.

By sacrificing Oklahoma to the Big 10 and landing N.D. ESPN gets virtually everything they want without destabilizing the balance in the East.

Why not just stay at status quo and have those things?
You probably could, at least until your current contract expired. Then your options legitimately will have changed if this scenario plays out.


After 2036? Who knows if there will be college football then.

That is not something to worry about.

If a spot is needed, I think ND will find one.
07-11-2018 05:15 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
OdinFrigg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,241
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #66
RE: What if Texas.............
SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......
07-11-2018 08:52 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: #67
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2018 09:06 PM by JRsec.)
07-11-2018 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
ICThawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 168
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation: 49
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #68
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.
I understand the above list is what you pull for, but how realistic do you really think it is? What reason would Texas have to leave the Big12 at the expiration of the GOR? I not sure Texas would have any reason to leave the B12 except OU leaving, and maybe not even then if UT decided to put together Big12 2.0. So, I think that probably means this all depends on OU to get things started. If OU doesn't move, possibly there is no expansion anywhere. My guess is if OU is approached by the B1G it will be with KU as its "partner" (I just don't see the B1G making much of a run at UT due to distance and "demeanor", though I could of course be wrong). If the SEC approaches OU, not sure who the SEC proposes as OU's partner (if not Texas of course). If OU "specifies" OSU, is that enough? If OU says "we don't care" or says "not OSU" (thinking that will give them an additional recruiting advantage), then who would it likely be, if not Texas? Or, do you think OU choosing the SEC would force Texas' hand and prompt Texas to go with OU right then? I certainly don't have the answers to these questions but I would be curious on your (and other posters) thoughts about them.
07-11-2018 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
OdinFrigg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,241
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #69
RE: What if Texas.............
I mistakenly overlooked KSU per PAC. Had them there, then lost the focus. If TCU goes to the ACC, that is a big geographic outlier. But they have the DFW airport handy; rather expensive though. Otherwise, they fit very well with certain upsides as you all have noted.
07-11-2018 11:29 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: #70
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 11:03 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.
I understand the above list is what you pull for, but how realistic do you really think it is? What reason would Texas have to leave the Big12 at the expiration of the GOR? I not sure Texas would have any reason to leave the B12 except OU leaving, and maybe not even then if UT decided to put together Big12 2.0. So, I think that probably means this all depends on OU to get things started. If OU doesn't move, possibly there is no expansion anywhere. My guess is if OU is approached by the B1G it will be with KU as its "partner" (I just don't see the B1G making much of a run at UT due to distance and "demeanor", though I could of course be wrong). If the SEC approaches OU, not sure who the SEC proposes as OU's partner (if not Texas of course). If OU "specifies" OSU, is that enough? If OU says "we don't care" or says "not OSU" (thinking that will give them an additional recruiting advantage), then who would it likely be, if not Texas? Or, do you think OU choosing the SEC would force Texas' hand and prompt Texas to go with OU right then? I certainly don't have the answers to these questions but I would be curious on your (and other posters) thoughts about them.

1. Check the previous page in this thread where I posted the valuations of the potential members and it will help you a bit I think.

2. I think the Big 10 is very interested in Texas, we all are.

3. Oklahoma has consistently had an OSU problem no matter what message boards say. They prevented OU to the PAC. OSU is not acceptable to the Big 10 either. And when OU approached the SEC about the 14th slot with A&M in 2010-2 they insisted that we take OSU. The only reason we didn't consider it was because we were mandated by our contract with ESPN that we would need 2 new markets added to our conference if we were to receive the privilege of renegotiating our contract.

Well we weren't going to turn down A&M for any reason, ever! That left 1 slot. ESPN wasn't going to pay us for 3 or 4 schools and if OU insisted on OSU well we would have to pass. Missouri, an ESPN suggestion, allegedly, became #14. But if you look at the valuations you will see that the duo of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add profit to the SEC. So next time around don't bet against it.

Texas had 3 historic rivals for most of their football lifetime: Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas A&M. If Oklahoma joins the SEC, even with OSU, Texas could very well decide for the sake of their business model, and ticket priority that playing all three again would be preferable to any other move, or rebuilding the SWC 2.0 with lesser brands which their alums don't want as the staples of their season ticket books.

So playing the Oklahoma card (even if that means taking OSU) is a viable lure for Texas.

So Oklahoma State, poor research standing and everything, has a higher sports valuation by the WSJ than North Carolina and that's for the combined football and basketball estimated economic impact worth.

If Texas needed a partner then Kansas, Texas Tech, or even Kansas State or Iowa State would still be profitable.

Our former commissioner Mike Slive was once asked what the limit on the number of new schools that could be added to the conference would be. Slive gave a very interesting and specific answer. He said that the limit was the number of schools that could add value to the conference. Right now it looks like that number could go as high as 18 total members.
07-11-2018 11:32 PM
Find all posts by this user
Transic_nyc Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,190
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 151
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #71
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.

Do you think that, in light of the article on Utah and the Pac-10, that more old assumptions should be changed?
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2018 07:19 AM by Transic_nyc.)
07-12-2018 07:18 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: #72
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 07:18 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.

Do you think that, in light of the article on Utah and the Pac-10, that more old assumptions should be changed?

Well first of all that article was a gloss for the Utah president. If not it was sure damning for the abilities of Larry Scott. I don't think Texas or Oklahoma will be heading West. The politics are absolutely wrong for those two states. There's hard feelings in Oklahoma after the last go around. Texas doesn't have anyone going with them that the PAC would love to have, and quite frankly there isn't enough money, or enough fan interest to make it happen.

My takeaway is that Colorado probably isn't off the table for the Big 10. I'm sure they like their ties to California, but the money difference is dramatic and sure worth a shot.

So as to a pairing for the Big 10 there should be 5 at least to pursue:
1. Kansas and Oklahoma
2. Oklahoma and Notre Dame
3. Oklahoma and Colorado
4. Kansas and Texas
5. Texas and Oklahoma
and maybe
6. Texas and Colorado.
or maybe even
7. Texas and Notre Dame

But in all likelihood the first three are more likely for several reasons not the least of which is the LHN until 2031. I don't see ESPN rolling that over into the BTN.
07-12-2018 07:38 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: #73
RE: What if Texas.............
Colorado swinging over to the Big Ten makes a lot of moves much easier.

The B1G needs a market like that a lot more than they need a market like Kansas just for example.
07-12-2018 02:40 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: #74
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 02:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Colorado swinging over to the Big Ten makes a lot of moves much easier.

The B1G needs a market like that a lot more than they need a market like Kansas just for example.

Would make some sense too for the B1G to grab more Big 8 schools.
SEC adds OU and OSU
Big Ten adds Kansas and Colorado
Texas re-evaluates 7 team Big 12
07-12-2018 02:56 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: #75
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 02:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Colorado swinging over to the Big Ten makes a lot of moves much easier.

The B1G needs a market like that a lot more than they need a market like Kansas just for example.

It would make the SEC or Big 10 just moving to 16 each much simpler.

Texas / Oklahoma to the SEC and Kansas / Colorado to the Big 10, or,

Texas / Kansas to the SEC and Oklahoma / Colorado to the Big 10.

The latter move fills out our Western side rivalries and strengthens the Big 10's branding, markets, and profile of their Western division.
07-12-2018 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
Transic_nyc Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,190
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 151
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #76
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-12-2018 02:40 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Colorado swinging over to the Big Ten makes a lot of moves much easier.

The B1G needs a market like that a lot more than they need a market like Kansas just for example.

It would make the SEC or Big 10 just moving to 16 each much simpler.

Texas / Oklahoma to the SEC and Kansas / Colorado to the Big 10, or,

Texas / Kansas to the SEC and Oklahoma / Colorado to the Big 10.

The latter move fills out our Western side rivalries and strengthens the Big 10's branding, markets, and profile of their Western division.

It would be great for Nebraska, since they'd reunite with two of their true rivals, not to mention giving the conference an academic fig leaf without having to take a program in the same state.

I have to wonder if Oklahoma State is feeling the same type of pressure Kansas may be facing right now. The only thing is OK State has been much quicker to sprucing themselves up, trying to pull out all the stops. Now they're allowing beer sales at their football stadium.

https://www.kxan.com/sports/oklahoma-sta...1299024341


Would the PAC then, replace just one or would they go for five to try to keep pace? Losing the Buffs would be a big blow to their prestige. Possibly they may stick to eleven if they don't get sure fire candidates.
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2018 07:33 PM by Transic_nyc.)
07-12-2018 07:28 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: #77
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 07:18 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-11-2018 08:52 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  SEC takes Texas and Kansas (16)

ACC takes WVU, UConn (or Cincy) (16)

PAC12 takes TTU, UNM (or TCU), OU, oSu (16)

BIG takes ISU, ND (ft). (16).

OK, won't happen this way. But......

I don't think that's too out of line. I've quietly contemplated something very similar.

Big 10 takes Oklahoma and Notre Dame
SEC takes Texas and Kansas
ACC takes T.C.U. and W.V.U.
PAC takes Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech.

That way the Big 10 and SEC are placated and both in ways that enhance the advertising value of their existing footprint and add a brand that enhances the weaknesses of both.

The ACC fills in their gap and the demographic of T.C.U. meets their need for market enhancement while providing them a good sports fit which is something WVU does as well.

The PAC who is presently in the weakest position gains 4 central time zone states. They don't like OSU but take them to set up a scheduling alliance with the Big 10 to enhance their market value along with the all of the footprint of the former Big 12 minus West Virginia. Iowa vs Iowa State & Oklahoma vs OSU, and of course now USC vs ND.

End the end if it looks like we are moving toward a champs only format the Irish will go for the money, especially if a scheduling alliance with the PAC gives them the largess to keep U.S.C as an annual.

But, I decided to pull for:
SEC: Texas & Kansas
B1G: Oklahoma & ISU
ACC: West Virginia and N.D.
PAC: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech & T.C.U. (I think the PAC would like to have a bigger piece of Texas than Tech could give them alone).

This scenario ensures that all rivalries are restored.

Do you think that, in light of the article on Utah and the Pac-10, that more old assumptions should be changed?

What article? Thanks!
07-12-2018 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
OdinFrigg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,241
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #78
RE: What if Texas.............
Say the B12 does have departures of OU, oSu, KU & WVU.
Texas has offers, but does not budge.
The UT people explore if they can create their own, new conference with essentially total control, yet have revenue coming in that is competitive with what was offered by other top conferences.
Assuming with Texas, that TCU, TTU, Baylor, KSU, and ISU remain, that would be six schools.
Texas leads in offers to Houston, Rice, SMU, and Tulane.
That would make 10.
Suppose they go further and add Memphis, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF.
That would be 14.
One can change the names with CSU or BYU and such.
I am not breaking them into divisions; you get the point.
Texas would be only highly elite member. Texas may exchange a few very prominent old conference opponents for lesser names in totality, but provide a more submissive group to financially and politically control and dominate.
Would the other P5 conferences keep them in their power fold along with the privileges afforded? I expect so, at least initially and minimumly for that level.
Certainly there would be drawbacks. But I believe Texas will consider such, again if they can financially swing it to their liking. They drop the Big12 name, calling the group something new. They would need a generous network backer.
I am not advocating this; rather trying to anticipate Texas' mindset when the time comes. If the effort fails or results become too lackluster, Texas exits and takes a 'P4' offer.
07-12-2018 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
Transic_nyc Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,190
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 151
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #79
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 07:30 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(07-12-2018 07:18 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Do you think that, in light of the article on Utah and the Pac-10, that more old assumptions should be changed?

What article? Thanks!

https://247sports.com/college/utah/Artic...119713965/
07-12-2018 07:58 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: #80
RE: What if Texas.............
(07-12-2018 07:37 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Say the B12 does have departures of OU, oSu, KU & WVU.
Texas has offers, but does not budge.
The UT people explore if they can create their own, new conference with essentially total control, yet have revenue coming in that is competitive with what was offered by other top conferences.
Assuming with Texas, that TCU, TTU, Baylor, KSU, and ISU remain, that would be six schools.
Texas leads in offers to Houston, Rice, SMU, and Tulane.
That would make 10.
Suppose they go further and add Memphis, Cincinnati, USF, and UCF.
That would be 14.
One can change the names with CSU or BYU and such.
I am not breaking them into divisions; you get the point.
Texas would be only highly elite member. Texas may exchange a few very prominent old conference opponents for lesser names in totality, but provide a more submissive group to financially and politically control and dominate.
Would the other P5 conferences keep them in their power fold along with the privileges afforded? I expect so, at least initially and minimumly for that level.
Certainly there would be drawbacks. But I believe Texas will consider such, again if they can financially swing it to their liking. They drop the Big12 name, calling the group something new. They would need a generous network backer.
I am not advocating this; rather trying to anticipate Texas' mindset when the time comes. If the effort fails or results become too lackluster, Texas exits and takes a 'P4' offer.

All it takes to destroy that option is a Champs Only format for the remaining P4. Even if we kept the CFP Selection Committee if Texas's SOS was judged to be lacking the opportunity to make the CFP being missed a few times would be enough to end it.
07-12-2018 08:12 PM
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.