Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
What if Texas.............
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #181
RE: What if Texas.............
(09-30-2018 07:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(09-29-2018 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-25-2018 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well should any current SEC member decide that a move to the ACC was in their best interest it solves all of the problems.

We stay at 16 taking Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The two Texas flagships give us what we want in the Lone Star state and Oklahoma with Texas leaves them free to play OSU as an OOC game and Kansas finishes out the footprint and gives Missouri and Arkansas even more neighboring foes.

I don't think any SEC schools wants to join the ACC. But if ESPN's dream is ensuring the long term stability of both conferences then I don't see any other option than a wholesale restructuring. The first move of that reorganization would swap UTN and AUB in exchange for NCST and UVA.

At this point both conferences can go to 18 in order to crave up the B12 with:

UTX, TT, WVU, ND ------> ACC
OU, OKST, KU, ISU -----> SEC

The WWL would need to delve deep into Mickey's pockets to make such a dream happen, but it would IMO provide sufficient protection against potential FAANG raids. The B1G and PAC can opt for those distribution models.

The ACC really needs to send UNC and UVA, IMO, but the basic premise is sound.

I do think that the ACC could survive, and even thrive with the loss of UNC/UVa/& Duke. Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, U.C.F., Houston, T.C.U. and South Florida all could be used to enhance sports profile and earn more money.

As far as Texas is concerned, ESPN makes the most off of them if they become full members of the SEC. The content multiplication, the interested eyes in Texas and of the nation are much more likely to be realized vs a SEC schedule. Nor do I see UT wanting to deal with placing non revenue, basketball and football elsewhere.

What I think is up in the air is whether Texas will insist upon Tech or whether having A&M would be sufficient in such a move.

If they insist upon Tech then Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10 would be likely. If they don't then Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC as a pair is not unlikely and neither would be Texas and Kansas to the SEC. Being in a conference with Texas at least leaves OU the ability to keep OSU as an OOC rival.

I don't see any ACC schools heading to the SEC at this time, and I would put the likelihood that Vandy would leave as remote.

The Big 10 and SEC will be the aggressors. The ACC will be a spectator which might take a target of opportunity (WVU & TCU) would be their most likely prospects.

I don't see the PAC getting involved unless (a) they get network backing for the additions, or (b) they can land Texas and will take the a few F.o.T's to get them.
09-30-2018 04:16 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: #182
RE: What if Texas.............
(09-30-2018 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-30-2018 07:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(09-29-2018 07:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-25-2018 10:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well should any current SEC member decide that a move to the ACC was in their best interest it solves all of the problems.

We stay at 16 taking Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The two Texas flagships give us what we want in the Lone Star state and Oklahoma with Texas leaves them free to play OSU as an OOC game and Kansas finishes out the footprint and gives Missouri and Arkansas even more neighboring foes.

I don't think any SEC schools wants to join the ACC. But if ESPN's dream is ensuring the long term stability of both conferences then I don't see any other option than a wholesale restructuring. The first move of that reorganization would swap UTN and AUB in exchange for NCST and UVA.

At this point both conferences can go to 18 in order to crave up the B12 with:

UTX, TT, WVU, ND ------> ACC
OU, OKST, KU, ISU -----> SEC

The WWL would need to delve deep into Mickey's pockets to make such a dream happen, but it would IMO provide sufficient protection against potential FAANG raids. The B1G and PAC can opt for those distribution models.

The ACC really needs to send UNC and UVA, IMO, but the basic premise is sound.

I do think that the ACC could survive, and even thrive with the loss of UNC/UVa/& Duke. Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, U.C.F., Houston, T.C.U. and South Florida all could be used to enhance sports profile and earn more money.

As far as Texas is concerned, ESPN makes the most off of them if they become full members of the SEC. The content multiplication, the interested eyes in Texas and of the nation are much more likely to be realized vs a SEC schedule. Nor do I see UT wanting to deal with placing non revenue, basketball and football elsewhere.

What I think is up in the air is whether Texas will insist upon Tech or whether having A&M would be sufficient in such a move.

If they insist upon Tech then Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10 would be likely. If they don't then Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC as a pair is not unlikely and neither would be Texas and Kansas to the SEC. Being in a conference with Texas at least leaves OU the ability to keep OSU as an OOC rival.

I don't see any ACC schools heading to the SEC at this time, and I would put the likelihood that Vandy would leave as remote.

The Big 10 and SEC will be the aggressors. The ACC will be a spectator which might take a target of opportunity (WVU & TCU) would be their most likely prospects.

I don't see the PAC getting involved unless (a) they get network backing for the additions, or (b) they can land Texas and will take the a few F.o.T's to get them.

The PAC is in a position of financial weakness. Add in poor attendance and terrible kickoff times for tv purposes, and you have the right conditions for these school to look or listen to realignment offers.

I wouldn’t count the Big Ten out of trying to add some PAC schools.
09-30-2018 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,755
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 348
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #183
RE: What if Texas.............
Let me offer the symmetry and the subsequent advantages of 20.

Accessing growing markets and new regions seems to be the consistent goal of conference expansion. Regardless of whether we're using the cable-centric market model or a more content-focused model, the goal is to get more eyeballs on your product. So with that in mind, I think there's room for variance in one's approach.

I've always liked 20 because you don't have to worry about dividing into 3 subsets. The math gets a little weird when you do that and it also limits the ability to tap multiple new regions.

Texas and Oklahoma are the key properties to gain here. The money is most efficiently distributed when those 2 and no more are added, but there are political concerns and the practical reality that those schools exist in a different region and therefore appeal to a different flavor of fan who might prefer to watch a few more regional rivals rather than more games against SEC East schools, for example.

So just go to 18, right? Oklahoma State is a decent content property and fits in pretty well culturally. I think ESPN would rather us take Kansas as the 18th school for a variety of reasons so I think that would be the 18th.

The primary issue with 18 is that it's more congruent to be able to divide into divisions of 4. I'm not sure we'd have conference semis as that would require a shuffling of the regular season schedule, but if you go past 16 then you might as well tap more geographical regions on your way to a looser divisional structure. That and creating a little more infrequency between major brands increases the chances of landing multiple teams in a college football playoff.

Does the money work at 20 though? Well, I think you're entering a critical territory where the amount of content under one roof would demand a higher premium from networks. Especially if you increased the number of conference games...

So does that mean networks would work against that sort of growth? Well, maybe not if it meant creating a product that was unquestionably the most watchable league across all platforms. College athletics is so disjointed that there's only 2 ways for a network entity to control the product.

1. Take all the best brands from across the country and stick them in a super league that would garner interest from all corners of the country.

2. Create the next best thing by sticking as many strong brands as you can under one roof so that other leagues can't really compete for the same amount of airtime.

One might say the latter destroys balance, but the truth is that balance has been gone for a long time. The leagues are not equal and there's no simple or fair way to make them equal. So the laws of economics would suggest we will continue down our current path until we have a greater and greater conglomerate.

So with that, I propose a slight variation on what I suggested before:

We go to 20 with the 4 mentioned earlier and we use another 2 slots to spread our wings a little further.

19. West Virginia is a strong regional brand that attracts students from both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's the simplest and cheapest way to tap those regions of the country and do it without compromising the quality of product. WVU has pretty well proven this year they can build a strong program in a good league with resources. Non-conference games with them from a variety of opponents in the region would help expand the SEC brand. They are SEC-like in passion and would provide a good rival for Kentucky. The coming focus on content as opposed to market size is actually WVU's strength. They have a good following outside their home market and while it would be better if the state of WV had a strong economy and larger population, what matters most if that people will watch them. The tech of modern broadcasting will render the location of those eyeballs less and less relevant.

20. Colorado is a brand that could expand our base of interest into the Mountain West and the West Coast. That and the growing state of CO provides a good base of support by itself. Games with CU would be good for ratings across the Southwest as well considering long time conference rivals of OU, OSU, KU, and MU would be in the fold. It's also likely that CU would be available given the PAC's trouble. I'm not suggesting that CU would love to be in the SEC first and foremost, but from a strategic standpoint I think it works for us. If there was mutual interest then I think 20 is very viable.
09-30-2018 11:50 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #184
RE: What if Texas.............
(09-30-2018 11:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let me offer the symmetry and the subsequent advantages of 20.

Accessing growing markets and new regions seems to be the consistent goal of conference expansion. Regardless of whether we're using the cable-centric market model or a more content-focused model, the goal is to get more eyeballs on your product. So with that in mind, I think there's room for variance in one's approach.

I've always liked 20 because you don't have to worry about dividing into 3 subsets. The math gets a little weird when you do that and it also limits the ability to tap multiple new regions.

Texas and Oklahoma are the key properties to gain here. The money is most efficiently distributed when those 2 and no more are added, but there are political concerns and the practical reality that those schools exist in a different region and therefore appeal to a different flavor of fan who might prefer to watch a few more regional rivals rather than more games against SEC East schools, for example.

So just go to 18, right? Oklahoma State is a decent content property and fits in pretty well culturally. I think ESPN would rather us take Kansas as the 18th school for a variety of reasons so I think that would be the 18th.

The primary issue with 18 is that it's more congruent to be able to divide into divisions of 4. I'm not sure we'd have conference semis as that would require a shuffling of the regular season schedule, but if you go past 16 then you might as well tap more geographical regions on your way to a looser divisional structure. That and creating a little more infrequency between major brands increases the chances of landing multiple teams in a college football playoff.

Does the money work at 20 though? Well, I think you're entering a critical territory where the amount of content under one roof would demand a higher premium from networks. Especially if you increased the number of conference games...

So does that mean networks would work against that sort of growth? Well, maybe not if it meant creating a product that was unquestionably the most watchable league across all platforms. College athletics is so disjointed that there's only 2 ways for a network entity to control the product.

1. Take all the best brands from across the country and stick them in a super league that would garner interest from all corners of the country.

2. Create the next best thing by sticking as many strong brands as you can under one roof so that other leagues can't really compete for the same amount of airtime.

One might say the latter destroys balance, but the truth is that balance has been gone for a long time. The leagues are not equal and there's no simple or fair way to make them equal. So the laws of economics would suggest we will continue down our current path until we have a greater and greater conglomerate.

So with that, I propose a slight variation on what I suggested before:

We go to 20 with the 4 mentioned earlier and we use another 2 slots to spread our wings a little further.

19. West Virginia is a strong regional brand that attracts students from both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. It's the simplest and cheapest way to tap those regions of the country and do it without compromising the quality of product. WVU has pretty well proven this year they can build a strong program in a good league with resources. Non-conference games with them from a variety of opponents in the region would help expand the SEC brand. They are SEC-like in passion and would provide a good rival for Kentucky. The coming focus on content as opposed to market size is actually WVU's strength. They have a good following outside their home market and while it would be better if the state of WV had a strong economy and larger population, what matters most if that people will watch them. The tech of modern broadcasting will render the location of those eyeballs less and less relevant.

20. Colorado is a brand that could expand our base of interest into the Mountain West and the West Coast. That and the growing state of CO provides a good base of support by itself. Games with CU would be good for ratings across the Southwest as well considering long time conference rivals of OU, OSU, KU, and MU would be in the fold. It's also likely that CU would be available given the PAC's trouble. I'm not suggesting that CU would love to be in the SEC first and foremost, but from a strategic standpoint I think it works for us. If there was mutual interest then I think 20 is very viable.

The bolded part is an indisputable fact in my opinion. But one the networks need to accept.

If we went to 20 I think Texas would insist upon Tech, Oklahoma State would be a given for the sake of acquiring OU, and Kansas and West Virginia would wind us up at 20. I like Colorado, but I don't think it likely that we would take from the PAC.

And I think creating regional integrity with divisions is essential. With that 20 what would that look like?

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2018 11:08 AM by JRsec.)
10-01-2018 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,529
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1146
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #185
RE: What if Texas.............
(09-30-2018 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 and SEC will be the aggressors. The ACC will be a spectator which might take a target of opportunity (WVU & TCU) would be their most likely prospects.

I don't see the PAC getting involved unless (a) they get network backing for the additions, or (b) they can land Texas and will take the a few F.o.T's to get them.

Agreed. This seems like the most likely outcome.
10-01-2018 10:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,755
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 348
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #186
RE: What if Texas.............
What if Texas can't separate from Texas Tech? What if they don't particularly care to?

That begs a question, if UT and TTU are more valuable than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then is there a great benefit in taking OU and OSU?

OK is still a small market at the end of the day and if OU can't separate then perhaps that puts them on an island.

The Big Ten won't take OSU and the PAC probably wouldn't either.

If the SEC can swing Texas and Texas Tech then they don't really need anything else. Does this dynamic force OU to pull out all the stops to move somewhere by themselves? Or does it create an opportunity for OU to be the centerpiece of a different league?

The ACC would be foolish to turn down an opportunity to grab Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, correct?
01-11-2019 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #187
RE: What if Texas.............
(01-11-2019 08:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What if Texas can't separate from Texas Tech? What if they don't particularly care to?

That begs a question, if UT and TTU are more valuable than Oklahoma and Oklahoma State then is there a great benefit in taking OU and OSU?

OK is still a small market at the end of the day and if OU can't separate then perhaps that puts them on an island.

The Big Ten won't take OSU and the PAC probably wouldn't either.

If the SEC can swing Texas and Texas Tech then they don't really need anything else. Does this dynamic force OU to pull out all the stops to move somewhere by themselves? Or does it create an opportunity for OU to be the centerpiece of a different league?

The ACC would be foolish to turn down an opportunity to grab Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, correct?

If Oklahoma can separate from Oklahoma State then why not go to 18 with Oklahoma and Kansas?

If we are just staying at 16 then Texas and Texas Tech would be better. They triple dip a state of 28 million and still add content.

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

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

That would still leave West Virginia and Notre Dame for the ACC. And it would create an interesting issue for the PAC.

Would they take Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and T.C.U. to move 18 with 3 divisions of 6? It might be the only way for the PAC to expand. That puts them in 4 states with 6 schools, enhances their markets immeasurably, puts them in DFW, adds 2 AAU schools and 2 national brands and gives them the football brand and hoops brand they need.

And what that sets up for the SEC is the football first schools of the ACC when the Big 10 is forced to move on the ACC in 2036.

Let's say the Big 10 moves on Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Virginia to go to 20. The SEC could counter with Clemson, Florida State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to reach 20.

Boston College, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Wake Forest, and West Virginia could get with Baylor, Army, Navy, Air Force, Central Florida, South Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Southern Methodist, Cincinnati, Temple and Brigham Young to form a new 4th conference.

Army, Boston College, West Virginia, Navy, Temple
Central Florida, East Carolina, Georgia Tech, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Southern Methodist
Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Tulane

If the PAC wanted to move to 20 they have the two Nevada's to choose from, or Wyoming, or San Diego State, or Hawaii.
01-11-2019 08:33 PM
Find all posts by this user
ICThawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 168
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation: 49
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #188
RE: What if Texas.............
(08-31-2018 02:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:37 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.

I noticed you reading the who should we take from the Big 12 thread the other night.

I think the perfect additions for the SEC to 16 are Texas and Kansas. I also figure this might be the best thing that could happen to Iowa State. Should the Big 10 take Oklahoma then Iowa State may make the most appealing partner if Texas and Kansas are off the board.

Iowa State / Iowa (Cyhawk) becomes an annual Big 10 rivalry. Oklahoma / Nebraska are reunited. Texas / A&M and MU / KU are reunited and both conferences move to 16 in acceptable and profitable ways.

I would be very good with that ending. I just don't know how likely it is that Kansas would want to come to the SEC. Or how likely it would be that Texas would not care to bring along another Texas school.

I also figured if Texas and Kansas came to the SEC that it might well help Oklahoma politically to separate from OSU since the SEC was the only conference likely to take both.

Thoughts?

Wonder if KU is already becoming a SEC football school with all of Les' hirings (understandably he hires those he knows and of course that is heavily SEC people)

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/jan/1...-senior-s/
01-11-2019 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #189
RE: What if Texas.............
(01-11-2019 11:30 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:37 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.

I noticed you reading the who should we take from the Big 12 thread the other night.

I think the perfect additions for the SEC to 16 are Texas and Kansas. I also figure this might be the best thing that could happen to Iowa State. Should the Big 10 take Oklahoma then Iowa State may make the most appealing partner if Texas and Kansas are off the board.

Iowa State / Iowa (Cyhawk) becomes an annual Big 10 rivalry. Oklahoma / Nebraska are reunited. Texas / A&M and MU / KU are reunited and both conferences move to 16 in acceptable and profitable ways.

I would be very good with that ending. I just don't know how likely it is that Kansas would want to come to the SEC. Or how likely it would be that Texas would not care to bring along another Texas school.

I also figured if Texas and Kansas came to the SEC that it might well help Oklahoma politically to separate from OSU since the SEC was the only conference likely to take both.

Thoughts?

Wonder if KU is already becoming a SEC football school with all of Les' hirings (understandably he hires those he knows and of course that is heavily SEC people)

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/jan/1...-senior-s/

I have to admit the thought had crossed my mind.

Maybe it won't work that way, but with Amazon making a bid on the RSN's both ESPN and FOX have incentives to make moves happen before the FAANG's can get involved and before contracts expire. That way they can lock up product, renegotiate existing contract values and sign extensions that avoid the possible intervention of the FAANGS in a few years.

There are other options out there too. Some we've not talked about, or at least not in a long long time.

Let's say hypothetically that the PAC was willing to sell a % of the PACN to ESPN or FOX or Both. And let's say they desperately needed a boost in markets.

What if Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State (all of which are now R1 with Texas being AAU) open up those markets. And let's say the bone to the Big 10 is Oklahoma where FOX has more of a vested interest via T3 rights is their prize. The SEC which is plenty football strong lands Kansas for hoops strength. But the price of Oklahoma for the Big 10 is Iowa State. The price of Kansas for the SEC is a presence in DFW with T.C.U. (currently R2 but getting a medical school). And lets say that West Virginia and Notre Dame go all in.

Baylor collects 9 sets of exit fees for their trouble and joins the AAC.

Now we have a P4 where everyone got something. Baylor is the odd man out (or I have another theory) and The SEC gets the presence in DFW it wanted via Oklahoma, only through an actual presence via T.C.U.. We pick up an AAU school which is worth more to us than it would be to the Big 10 (Kansas). The PAC gets the Texas market with a presence in Oklahoma and Kansas and the Big 10 gets its annual contender in the Big10 West giving and a good midtier program in Iowa State.

That's one way that we could move to a 4 x 16 a champs only playoff format, and essentially boost the ACC and PAC will giving the Big 10 and SEC a modest to decent punch.

Now as to Baylor. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Wake might choose to affiliate with the ACC for everything but football (where they would still have 5 games like N.D. does now, and Baylor a better market and sports product slips into the ACC as #16. Then everyone is accommodated.

It's not ideal, but it could work out nicely for everyone. But then that's why I doubt it happens. And if that brokering could occur prior to the expiration of contracts and GOR's it would benefit FOX and ESPN and all four conferences.

SEC:

Kansas, Missouri, T.C.U., Texas A&M

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina



B1G:

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Oklahoma



PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech



ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

* Wake Forest as a partial for football (5 ACC games to be played) Full member in all other sports.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019 12:33 AM by JRsec.)
01-12-2019 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,755
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 348
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #190
RE: What if Texas.............
(01-11-2019 11:30 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:37 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.

I noticed you reading the who should we take from the Big 12 thread the other night.

I think the perfect additions for the SEC to 16 are Texas and Kansas. I also figure this might be the best thing that could happen to Iowa State. Should the Big 10 take Oklahoma then Iowa State may make the most appealing partner if Texas and Kansas are off the board.

Iowa State / Iowa (Cyhawk) becomes an annual Big 10 rivalry. Oklahoma / Nebraska are reunited. Texas / A&M and MU / KU are reunited and both conferences move to 16 in acceptable and profitable ways.

I would be very good with that ending. I just don't know how likely it is that Kansas would want to come to the SEC. Or how likely it would be that Texas would not care to bring along another Texas school.

I also figured if Texas and Kansas came to the SEC that it might well help Oklahoma politically to separate from OSU since the SEC was the only conference likely to take both.

Thoughts?

Wonder if KU is already becoming a SEC football school with all of Les' hirings (understandably he hires those he knows and of course that is heavily SEC people)

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/jan/1...-senior-s/

Texas and Kansas makes a great deal of sense.

I tend to think Texas Tech might be required to seal the deal with Texas though if for no more reason than playing a ton of in-state schools has been good for UT historically and I think their Legislature will try to push it as well. Speaking of the Legislature, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to push Houston as well, but that's a different discussion.

But if ESPN wants Kansas in the SEC, and I tend to think they do, then the trouble is finding the most compatible partner.

My earlier question about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the notion that a separation couldn't occur, but if it can occur then that opens up a ton of possibilities.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas is an incredibly strong 4 team haul.

Nothing particularly wrong with Oklahoma State, but it's a secondary school in a small state and they don't really have a national brand.

Personally, I like 20 more than 18 as the divisional structure will have a lot more advantages if you can divide into an even 4 rather than an odd 3, but the biggest problem is acquiring solid schools when the ACC is not available to crack.
01-12-2019 12:19 AM
Find all posts by this user
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,313
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #191
RE: What if Texas.............
(01-12-2019 12:19 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-11-2019 11:30 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-31-2018 02:37 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  A few things about Kansas. We are a good buy currently. Our FB is at it's worst point in our history, by a long shot, and it is really hurting our revenue. KU FB has been mostly mediocre historically, beaten by the conference leaders pretty easily, but usually competitive with the middle and bottom. Basically Oklahoma State and KU were similar programs historically until the last decade or so (they got Boone/Gundy and we got a bunch of circus clowns). When we were last competitive under Mangino we sold out. No school has fans that will show up when you do as badly has we have the last 8 years. Our AD revenue last year was $95M, a few years earlier it was around $110M. If our football was competitive we would be making $125-130M currently. Get competitive and throw in a new stadium, if it gets done (and if it does we were assured of a landing spot somewhere), and our WSJ valuation will jump probably a $100M or more (which is into KSU/OSU territory).

Our last AD, Sheahon Zenger, was an imbecile and our previous chancellor did not care for sports. Our new Chancellor, Douglas Girod, is a sports fan who has been attending KU FB games for years, and he helped turn a struggling KU Med around. The new AD Long will get FB competitive again. We are paying him among the highest salaries for an AD in the country and I am pretty confident KU will pay pretty well ($4M+) to our next football coach, which along with Long's connections should allow us to land a solid coach. When KU has a solid coach we are competitive (Gottfried, Mason, Mangino).

As far as the SEC goes, I think KU and the SEC are about a perfect fit athletically. SEC FB already has more than enough good to great teams. The SEC would gain by having more easy wins on the schedule of their top schools. KU would almost certainly remain mediocre, but would get more talent on the roster, win more out of conference, and play competitively with the middle and bottom schools each year, but be an easy win for the top of the conference. In basketball, no conference would gain more by adding Kansas than the SEC. It would give you one of the top BB brands to help drive ratings/ticket sales for all your BB programs when they play Kansas, while also giving both Kansas and Kentucky a foil of the same stature. The Kentucky/KU games have been ratings gold the last few years and would give the SEC it's Duke/UNC type BB rivalry. The KU and MU rivalry would be restored.

I have said on here before my hope is KU ends up in the SEC or B1G, if the B12 dies, because those conferences have passionate fans like the B12 has and are closer geographically. The ACC is too far away and I have lived in 2 PAC states and all sports talk/attention there is mostly centered on the pros.

I noticed you reading the who should we take from the Big 12 thread the other night.

I think the perfect additions for the SEC to 16 are Texas and Kansas. I also figure this might be the best thing that could happen to Iowa State. Should the Big 10 take Oklahoma then Iowa State may make the most appealing partner if Texas and Kansas are off the board.

Iowa State / Iowa (Cyhawk) becomes an annual Big 10 rivalry. Oklahoma / Nebraska are reunited. Texas / A&M and MU / KU are reunited and both conferences move to 16 in acceptable and profitable ways.

I would be very good with that ending. I just don't know how likely it is that Kansas would want to come to the SEC. Or how likely it would be that Texas would not care to bring along another Texas school.

I also figured if Texas and Kansas came to the SEC that it might well help Oklahoma politically to separate from OSU since the SEC was the only conference likely to take both.

Thoughts?

Wonder if KU is already becoming a SEC football school with all of Les' hirings (understandably he hires those he knows and of course that is heavily SEC people)

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/jan/1...-senior-s/

Texas and Kansas makes a great deal of sense.

I tend to think Texas Tech might be required to seal the deal with Texas though if for no more reason than playing a ton of in-state schools has been good for UT historically and I think their Legislature will try to push it as well. Speaking of the Legislature, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to push Houston as well, but that's a different discussion.

But if ESPN wants Kansas in the SEC, and I tend to think they do, then the trouble is finding the most compatible partner.

My earlier question about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State was predicated on the notion that a separation couldn't occur, but if it can occur then that opens up a ton of possibilities.

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Kansas is an incredibly strong 4 team haul.

Nothing particularly wrong with Oklahoma State, but it's a secondary school in a small state and they don't really have a national brand.

Personally, I like 20 more than 18 as the divisional structure will have a lot more advantages if you can divide into an even 4 rather than an odd 3, but the biggest problem is acquiring solid schools when the ACC is not available to crack.

Recency bias showing here, as OSU has had some strong basketball teams in the past, but with what Beard is doing at Tech, those four, not just Kansas, would not be a bad basketball move either. ( I know basketball does not move the needle on realignment, but still...)

According the NET rankings as of yesterday's games, that expansion would give the SEC:
4 Texas Tech
5 TN
11 Kansas
12 Kentucky
15 OK
24 Auburn
25 LSU
28 Ole Miss
30 Miss St.
39 Florida
48 Texas

11 in the top 50

We had 8 teams make the tournament in 2018. I don't know how the NET will compare to RPI in terms of rankings versus making the tournament, but I would bet that if similar, 10 teams are in, with Texas being a bubble/potential First Four team. That would be a great showing and I think people would tune in for a Texas Tech-KY/TN-Kansas semi in the SEC tourney.

Edit: Since I don't know much about the NET rankings, I went to KenPom. In KenPom, we still have 11 in the top 50, but they are actually all in the top 37.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019 10:22 PM by Soobahk40050.)
01-12-2019 10:15 PM
Find all posts by this user
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #192
RE: What if Texas.............
Well, Texas Did! 07/29/2021 and with Oklahoma 07/29/2021!
07-31-2021 03:31 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.