(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 09:08 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 01:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:59 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think that Texas and Texas Tech moving to the SEC is about as simple as it gets as far as meeting a host of priorities and not rocking the boat in the process.

If Colorado is willing to jump to the Big Ten then things could get really interesting on that front as well. What about this idea? Let's say CU wants the B1G's money, but they want something else to move the needle in their direction...the state politicians want a better deal for their state. CU agrees to jump to the B1G if Colorado State gets an invitation to a Power league. In the long run, the state of CO's population growth probably supports this sort of endeavor more so than a state like KS or some others.

And what if the B1G was asked to protect another school in a populous region in order to have their deal facilitated? Would they balk at a school like TCU? It's not a state flagship, but it has a lot of advantages and brings a lot of value to a Northern conference.

If the SEC took Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, and Colorado State

If the B1G took Oklahoma, Colorado, TCU, and Iowa State

At that point, both the SEC and B1G would stand at 18 and I don't think the ACC would balk at voting for an expanded postseason.

Ohio1317 has one of the more level heads on the board for a Big 10 poster. BadgerMJ is pretty sharp as well. Transyc usually drops in here and he has a good grasp of their viewpoints.

I think the best bet for CSU if Colorado defected would be the PAC. I really could see the PAC take T.C.U. and C.S.U. because those are markets they would love.

I mentioned Ohio1317 because he doesn't believe they would expand beyond 16 and I think that may be the SEC's thinking as well. Since the PAC and B1G are likely to partner up CSU to the PAC might be workable.

I would be very happy if we landed Texas and Kansas. Ecstatic if we landed Texas and Oklahoma. But landing Texas and Tech and not losing out on monopolizing a major state like we did in Florida would still be a huge win.

The Big 10 would not be thrilled with T.C.U. period. Small enrollment, not AAU, and not strong in research. Iowa State?

If they landed Oklahoma and Colorado and we did land Texas and Kansas, I could see the PAC taking Texas Tech as a bridge, T.C.U. for DFW, Colorado State for Denver, and possibly making the move for the Asian market like they've talked about by taking Hawaii. That's a lot of market to be picked up.

Then WVU to the ACC with N.D. eventually following makes sense.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State all get absorbed by the AAC in an upgrade.

Speaking of the B1G, how much do we really want to cooperate with their interests?

Let's say we were able to nail down Oklahoma and Kansas. I think those are pretty solid additions if we're going to 16. The big advantage there is we've cut off the B1G to the West...no shot at landing Texas if they can't move in their general direction. All their hopes lie in picking apart the ACC, but the odds of them going beyond 16 would be small so there's not a lot of economic weight they can accumulate with 2 additions in the East assuming one of them isn't Notre Dame.

Principally, unless they land one of OU or UT then their ability to upgrade is severely limited.

But you said earlier that there are plans to upgrade Texas Tech academically. That sounds suspiciously like something the PAC would want. If UT and Tech move to the PAC then a balance of priorities are met. They don't quite get the financial windfall of the SEC, but they don't have to admit to needing us either. They'll have a strong take home in a 14 team PAC. They also don't have to sign up for an unnatural fit in the ACC.

The PAC would give UT the flexibility to schedule rivalry games when they want and they can still keep the other local team in Tech which is something the B1G couldn't offer.

It's true that most of their major rivals would be in the SEC, but that also creates a problem as their odds of making the CFP and winning championships are reduced given the incredible strength of the conference. In short, they'll also be more competitive in the PAC and perhaps that's an undervalued commodity in these decisions.

For Oklahoma, I'm sure they want Oklahoma State involved, but what if no one is willing to take them? OU is not going to stay in the Big 12 based on that so the question comes down to what the better deal is. If the SEC is wiling to take Kansas then I can't see how the SEC isn't a better deal. They may not have a choice other than to separate from OSU.

The biggest obstacle for Texas to head to the PAC would be money. They'll make less even with their addition factored in. They get 35 million from the Big 12 and 15 million more for the LHN. Texas is making 50 million for all tiers of TV revenue. The PAC for all 3 tiers is paying 32 million. So Texas joining the PAC would essentially add about 3 million per each PAC school and addition so they would be making 15 million less (the LHN money). If they joined for football only with the ACC and kept the LHN they would only lose about 5 million per year with the bump up their presence would give to the ACC football revenue.

As for championships, when was the last time they won one in the major three sports in the Big 12? 2008 for football, and maybe one between then and now for baseball.

There are only two other conferences that Texas could join where the payouts would be as profitable or more, the SEC or Big 10.

I fully expect the OSU issue to be the most difficult one for any future conference home to deal with with regard to Oklahoma. That political pressure is going to be real.

It's another reason that Kansas and Texas will be better choices for either the SEC or Big 10. When you speak of contiguity there is only a slither of the Oklahoma panhandle separating Kansas from Texas. In other words not much.The same is true for the lower right corner of Colorado. So either Kansas or Colorado could be used to justify a move on to Texas for the Big 10.

Since OU & KU seem the most "dissatisfied" of the B12 schools, would inviting just OU & KU in 2023:

1) "cut off" Texas from possibly ever joining the B1G? (huge outlier)
2) "force" Texas to the SEC if not immediately, at least eventually (2031)? (lower
payouts everywhere else and only the reasonable home for non-revenue sports)
3) result in a P4 rather than P5 configuration forcing Notre Dame into the ACC in
full as a result of a "conference champion" format;
4) solve possible "little brother" problems for both OU & KU? (sorry, "small" state so
can only invite 1 school from the state...the B1G certainly wouldn't invite KSU or
OSU)?
5) solidify the SEC in national perception as "the" football AND basketball
conference; and,
6) make the SEC financially untouchable and give the SEC a HUGE amount of
bargaining power over future sports rights with whoever (or multiple parties).

Only problems might be:
1) IF the SEC offered OU & KU, who would the schools choose IF the B1G made a
counter offer to the same two schools; and,
2) IF the schools were not a "package", what would both the SEC & B1G do if OU
and KU each chose a different conference?

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The biggest obstacle for Texas to head to the PAC would be money. They'll make less even with their addition factored in. They get 35 million from the Big 12 and 15 million more for the LHN. Texas is making 50 million for all tiers of TV revenue. The PAC for all 3 tiers is paying 32 million. So Texas joining the PAC would essentially add about 3 million per each PAC school and addition so they would be making 15 million less (the LHN money). If they joined for football only with the ACC and kept the LHN they would only lose about 5 million per year with the bump up their presence would give to the ACC football revenue.

Their earnings in the Big 12 are a bit inflated though. The networks overpaid to keep everything together. Of course, Texas could probably make that 15 million in 3rd tier money if they moved to the SEC. The whole package together should be worth that for everyone although the PAC's 3rd tier deal should be worth a good bit more than it currently is if they add Texas to the pot and restructure their network. Selling out to ESPN, for example, in exchange for greater exposure and penetration as well as compromising and offering some content on ESPN+ might produce a strong return. The PAC should be willing to do that in order to get Texas and secure their future. Some of their schools are starting to hurt financially.

The PAC's deal still wouldn't be in the same ballpark with the SEC when the final figures are tallied, I get it, but the issue for me is that UT would be giving up the degree of influence they've become accustomed to should they move to the SEC. Maybe they just want the money, but if they could save Tech and save face by going to the PAC then I have to think that would be tempting for them.

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for championships, when was the last time they won one in the major three sports in the Big 12? 2008 for football, and maybe one between then and now for baseball.

Well, that's what I'm getting at. They have a hard enough time competing for championships in the Big 12. Their chances of making the CFP out of the SEC could be effectively zero.

Do they want that reality in exchange for the extra cash? In the PAC, with as few strong programs as they have, UT would be competing for conference titles every season. That and they'd be more prominent in decision making.

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's another reason that Kansas and Texas will be better choices for either the SEC or Big 10. When you speak of contiguity there is only a slither of the Oklahoma panhandle separating Kansas from Texas. In other words not much.The same is true for the lower right corner of Colorado. So either Kansas or Colorado could be used to justify a move on to Texas for the Big 10.

Kansas and Texas would be a good move. Texas and Texas Tech would also be good, but the SEC or the PAC would be the only options to protect Tech. I just don't see the PAC taking Tech by themselves. Texas would almost certainly have to be in that deal as Tech doesn't have a lot of gravitas in any sphere.

It makes a lot of sense that UT would just join the SEC and be done with it, but their track record does suggest a more ego-driven set of priorities.

(09-06-2018 10:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The biggest obstacle for Texas to head to the PAC would be money. They'll make less even with their addition factored in. They get 35 million from the Big 12 and 15 million more for the LHN. Texas is making 50 million for all tiers of TV revenue. The PAC for all 3 tiers is paying 32 million. So Texas joining the PAC would essentially add about 3 million per each PAC school and addition so they would be making 15 million less (the LHN money). If they joined for football only with the ACC and kept the LHN they would only lose about 5 million per year with the bump up their presence would give to the ACC football revenue.

Their earnings in the Big 12 are a bit inflated though. The networks overpaid to keep everything together. Of course, Texas could probably make that 15 million in 3rd tier money if they moved to the SEC. The whole package together should be worth that for everyone although the PAC's 3rd tier deal should be worth a good bit more than it currently is if they add Texas to the pot and restructure their network. Selling out to ESPN, for example, in exchange for greater exposure and penetration as well as compromising and offering some content on ESPN+ might produce a strong return. The PAC should be willing to do that in order to get Texas and secure their future. Some of their schools are starting to hurt financially.

The PAC's deal still wouldn't be in the same ballpark with the SEC when the final figures are tallied, I get it, but the issue for me is that UT would be giving up the degree of influence they've become accustomed to should they move to the SEC. Maybe they just want the money, but if they could save Tech and save face by going to the PAC then I have to think that would be tempting for them.

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for championships, when was the last time they won one in the major three sports in the Big 12? 2008 for football, and maybe one between then and now for baseball.

Well, that's what I'm getting at. They have a hard enough time competing for championships in the Big 12. Their chances of making the CFP out of the SEC could be effectively zero.

Do they want that reality in exchange for the extra cash? In the PAC, with as few strong programs as they have, UT would be competing for conference titles every season. That and they'd be more prominent in decision making.

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's another reason that Kansas and Texas will be better choices for either the SEC or Big 10. When you speak of contiguity there is only a slither of the Oklahoma panhandle separating Kansas from Texas. In other words not much.The same is true for the lower right corner of Colorado. So either Kansas or Colorado could be used to justify a move on to Texas for the Big 10.

Kansas and Texas would be a good move. Texas and Texas Tech would also be good, but the SEC or the PAC would be the only options to protect Tech. I just don't see the PAC taking Tech by themselves. Texas would almost certainly have to be in that deal as Tech doesn't have a lot of gravitas in any sphere.

It makes a lot of sense that UT would just join the SEC and be done with it, but their track record does suggest a more ego-driven set of priorities.

It is difficult to be even semi-convinced Texas would move a certain way that looks practical and fits the norms. Watch them, the Longhorns will try something bizarre first (or again), and if not successful in pulling all the elements together, will eventually settle for something more realistic. Doubtful Texas could pull off an ACC hybrid accommodation to their full liking, but expect they will try, using media (ESPN and such) to fashion a lucrative design. It is just too many external entities to manipulate.

(09-06-2018 11:19 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(09-06-2018 10:30 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The biggest obstacle for Texas to head to the PAC would be money. They'll make less even with their addition factored in. They get 35 million from the Big 12 and 15 million more for the LHN. Texas is making 50 million for all tiers of TV revenue. The PAC for all 3 tiers is paying 32 million. So Texas joining the PAC would essentially add about 3 million per each PAC school and addition so they would be making 15 million less (the LHN money). If they joined for football only with the ACC and kept the LHN they would only lose about 5 million per year with the bump up their presence would give to the ACC football revenue.

Their earnings in the Big 12 are a bit inflated though. The networks overpaid to keep everything together. Of course, Texas could probably make that 15 million in 3rd tier money if they moved to the SEC. The whole package together should be worth that for everyone although the PAC's 3rd tier deal should be worth a good bit more than it currently is if they add Texas to the pot and restructure their network. Selling out to ESPN, for example, in exchange for greater exposure and penetration as well as compromising and offering some content on ESPN+ might produce a strong return. The PAC should be willing to do that in order to get Texas and secure their future. Some of their schools are starting to hurt financially.

The PAC's deal still wouldn't be in the same ballpark with the SEC when the final figures are tallied, I get it, but the issue for me is that UT would be giving up the degree of influence they've become accustomed to should they move to the SEC. Maybe they just want the money, but if they could save Tech and save face by going to the PAC then I have to think that would be tempting for them.

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As for championships, when was the last time they won one in the major three sports in the Big 12? 2008 for football, and maybe one between then and now for baseball.

Well, that's what I'm getting at. They have a hard enough time competing for championships in the Big 12. Their chances of making the CFP out of the SEC could be effectively zero.

Do they want that reality in exchange for the extra cash? In the PAC, with as few strong programs as they have, UT would be competing for conference titles every season. That and they'd be more prominent in decision making.

(09-05-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's another reason that Kansas and Texas will be better choices for either the SEC or Big 10. When you speak of contiguity there is only a slither of the Oklahoma panhandle separating Kansas from Texas. In other words not much.The same is true for the lower right corner of Colorado. So either Kansas or Colorado could be used to justify a move on to Texas for the Big 10.

Kansas and Texas would be a good move. Texas and Texas Tech would also be good, but the SEC or the PAC would be the only options to protect Tech. I just don't see the PAC taking Tech by themselves. Texas would almost certainly have to be in that deal as Tech doesn't have a lot of gravitas in any sphere.

It makes a lot of sense that UT would just join the SEC and be done with it, but their track record does suggest a more ego-driven set of priorities.

It is difficult to be even semi-convinced Texas would move a certain way that looks practical and fits the norms. Watch them, the Longhorns will try something bizarre first (or again), and if not successful in pulling all the elements together, will eventually settle for something more realistic. Doubtful Texas could pull off an ACC hybrid accommodation to their full liking, but expect they will try, using media (ESPN and such) to fashion a lucrative design. It is just too many external entities to manipulate.

In the end it is a business move for the SEC, for Texas, and for ESPN. Since that is the ultimate situation I believe in Occam's Razor.

(09-02-2018 12:41 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  I hope you realize Tech has more of a presence in DFW than TCU.

Maybe if you're talking about the D part of DFW. I can't remember the last time I saw Texas Tech anything (t-shirt, bumper sticker, hat, novelty cat socks) in FW. TCU is far and away the most visible school here, followed by OU, and some combination of A&M/UNT. UT-Austin fans are in hiding, and Baylor fans...I think they all live in Plano.

TCU has a great presence in DFW but that's not their biggest advantage

What they offer is a physical presence in DFW which will be even bigger for the SEC than the B12. Most fan bases in the B12 that even bother to travel for football games are within day tripping of Fort Worth or they are fans of those teams that already live in DFW anyway. They aren't spending as much time or money in town for TCU games. But other than A&M, no other SEC team can day trip FW (and A&M has a ton of Alums there already and even a few students at the A&M law and dental schools in FW and Dallas respectively).

These other big passionate traveling SEC fan bases will spend a full weekend in DFW staying in its hotels, eating in its restaurants, drinking in its bars and visiting its tourist attractions. The result of this out of town vs local resident fans is a Large Outside injections of money into its economy rather than just recycling money of local resident fans. That creates an economic incentive for DFW to really support the SEC and make it a SEC town. You'd see the papers and local news go all out for SEC sports and culture instantly in a way they've only ever half heartedly done with the B12. That's the big difference in why TCU is more valuable to the SEC than to the Big 12