Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #21
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
(03-07-2021 07:56 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(03-03-2021 11:52 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  Obviously Texas/OK are 1A and 1B and nothing else.

But I'll play along:

I'll take Oklahoma and Kansas.

Rationales:
1) Though I would love for the SEC to take V Tech for TN, we need two western teams at the moment.

2) OK is an obvious blue blood that brings both on the field results and helps the $.
3) OK State would be fine as a tag-a-long, but doesn't really move the needle otherwise (no offense to OK State)
4) Kansas basketball, academics, and rivalry with Missouri make it a solid fit and expands the SEC into another state, however small.
5) Kansas and OK "block" Texas from being contiguous with the Big 10.
6) Taking these two teams allows Alabama/Auburn to shift East with Missouri moving west; can remove protected rivalries.
7) I feel like Texas would mess up the collegiality of the conference.

Taking 2 eastern teams would help move Missouri west also.

True, but then Alabama/Auburn are stuck in the west, and we have to keep protected rivalries, which gets complicated.
03-08-2021 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #22
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
While I am no fan of Texas and the arrogance they have shown for years, they are the most valuable commodity out there. Their value exceeds Notre Dame.

From inside Oklahoma, the OU-OSU relationship is seen as more respected than perceived externally.

Kansas is a mess, and the SEC venturing to the wheat fields may find cows, but not cash cows.
03-08-2021 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #23
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
I wasn't unduly trying to be blunt or contrary.

OK, I didn't name two schools and be definitive as a personal preference. Texas would be one of them if it will be smooth sailing. That's no guarantee.

The problem is predicting the situation approximately three years from now. For the SEC and the B10, there are not vast, enticing, and lucrative options to pursue. Major conferences will not assemble and swap/trade in an amiable, equitable fashion. Perhaps that would be an improved approach, though.

GoRs, TV contracts, state politics, etc. constrain so much. I'd rather see major conferences get together not to swap schools, but establish and standardize a maximum number of schools for each conference. End the GoRs and have reasonable exit fees. It would enhance all major conference stability for the long-term.

Obviously, looking west, Texas and Oklahoma
appear as the strongest, speculative
prospects right now. But new developments two years from now could alter that.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2021 03:13 PM by OdinFrigg.)
03-08-2021 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
(03-08-2021 03:10 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I wasn't unduly trying to be blunt or contrary.

OK, I didn't name two schools and be definitive as a personal preference. Texas would be one of them if it will be smooth sailing. That's no guarantee.

The problem is predicting the situation approximately three years from now. For the SEC and the B10, there are not vast, enticing, and lucrative options to pursue. Major conferences will not assemble and swap/trade in an amiable, equitable fashion. Perhaps that would be an improved approach, though.

GoRs, TV contracts, state politics, etc. constrain so much. I'd rather see major conferences get together not to swap schools, but establish and standardize a maximum number of schools for each conference. End the GoRs and have reasonable exit fees. It would enhance all major conference stability for the long-term.

Obviously, looking west, Texas and Oklahoma
appear as the strongest, speculative
prospects right now. But new developments two years from now could alter that.

It's an interesting set of problems:

1. Texas and Oklahoma are valuable enough for the Big 10 and SEC to add and they have by far the greatest disparity between top schools in a conference and the rest of that conference in both earnings and the % of the total value of the conference they represent.

2. The ACC will be getting doubled up in media revenue by the SEC and Big 10 and are locked in until after Boomers are statistically gone before they can renew and Boomers and X'ers represent the bulk of college sports viewing now so prospects for a better contract in 2037 are statistically bleak for the ACC.

3. The PAC quite possibly could be worth less than they are currently being paid and certainly not a great deal more like they need. A PAC implosion could reshape all of realignment if Texas and Oklahoma find a way to keep their fiefdom by adding PAC schools. The old core PAC might even consider, when all else fails, to become a West Division of the Big 10, which might result in the SEC and ACC taking a whole new look at reformation.

So yes, there are many variables in play outside of these simple scenarios:
1. Red Ink from COVID losses places pressure on what appear to be secure schools to make quick and radical changes in order to save their athletic departments. Or they drop down in extreme cases.

2. NIL rulings place even more economic pressure on the marginal programs of the P5 forcing some out and place enough forward looking pressure that some bell cows in lesser conferences jump for greener pastures, and I'm talking surprisingly big bell cows from P5's (ACC, PAC, Big 12) and they collect as much as they can get for the future and those left behind form a new, but somewhat lesser paid P4 conference.

3. Pay for Play hits in much the same way as described about the NIL rulings.

4. People turned off by political agendas at their escape time venues don't return, quit donating, even turn off the tube sports. They've had a year of lockdown to find other interests many of which are more hands on enjoyable. The dumb*** AD's that jumped on board the protest bandwagon without considering their audience are going to be in for a very rude awakening when the numbers next year, even without attendance restrictions, don't return to anywhere near the percentages of capacity they enjoyed pre-COVID, and fear of COVID will only be a very small percentage of those absentees.

This too will bring radical pressure for change, just not the changes these puddinheads were thinking about.

5. How long can cable networks survive? Nobody is clear on this one.

I'd say the surest bet is larger conferences for the sake of scheduling, holding extra rounds of internal playoffs (where monetary gains have been solid) and for leverage when negotiating contracts, and because they may lose a member or two to the above factors.

People are wary and handwringing the effects we already see. But what we are feeling is that quick wind of change that hits before the real storm strikes and that storm is coming and is going to be much worse than what is currently feared.
03-08-2021 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Offline
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,793
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #25
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
(03-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-08-2021 03:10 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I wasn't unduly trying to be blunt or contrary.

OK, I didn't name two schools and be definitive as a personal preference. Texas would be one of them if it will be smooth sailing. That's no guarantee.

The problem is predicting the situation approximately three years from now. For the SEC and the B10, there are not vast, enticing, and lucrative options to pursue. Major conferences will not assemble and swap/trade in an amiable, equitable fashion. Perhaps that would be an improved approach, though.

GoRs, TV contracts, state politics, etc. constrain so much. I'd rather see major conferences get together not to swap schools, but establish and standardize a maximum number of schools for each conference. End the GoRs and have reasonable exit fees. It would enhance all major conference stability for the long-term.

Obviously, looking west, Texas and Oklahoma
appear as the strongest, speculative
prospects right now. But new developments two years from now could alter that.

It's an interesting set of problems:

1. Texas and Oklahoma are valuable enough for the Big 10 and SEC to add and they have by far the greatest disparity between top schools in a conference and the rest of that conference in both earnings and the % of the total value of the conference they represent.

2. The ACC will be getting doubled up in media revenue by the SEC and Big 10 and are locked in until after Boomers are statistically gone before they can renew and Boomers and X'ers represent the bulk of college sports viewing now so prospects for a better contract in 2037 are statistically bleak for the ACC.

3. The PAC quite possibly could be worth less than they are currently being paid and certainly not a great deal more like they need. A PAC implosion could reshape all of realignment if Texas and Oklahoma find a way to keep their fiefdom by adding PAC schools. The old core PAC might even consider, when all else fails, to become a West Division of the Big 10, which might result in the SEC and ACC taking a whole new look at reformation.

So yes, there are many variables in play outside of these simple scenarios:
1. Red Ink from COVID losses places pressure on what appear to be secure schools to make quick and radical changes in order to save their athletic departments. Or they drop down in extreme cases.

2. NIL rulings place even more economic pressure on the marginal programs of the P5 forcing some out and place enough forward looking pressure that some bell cows in lesser conferences jump for greener pastures, and I'm talking surprisingly big bell cows from P5's (ACC, PAC, Big 12) and they collect as much as they can get for the future and those left behind form a new, but somewhat lesser paid P4 conference.

3. Pay for Play hits in much the same way as described about the NIL rulings.

4. People turned off by political agendas at their escape time venues don't return, quit donating, even turn off the tube sports. They've had a year of lockdown to find other interests many of which are more hands on enjoyable. The dumb*** AD's that jumped on board the protest bandwagon without considering their audience are going to be in for a very rude awakening when the numbers next year, even without attendance restrictions, don't return to anywhere near the percentages of capacity they enjoyed pre-COVID, and fear of COVID will only be a very small percentage of those absentees.

This too will bring radical pressure for change, just not the changes these puddinheads were thinking about.

5. How long can cable networks survive? Nobody is clear on this one.

I'd say the surest bet is larger conferences for the sake of scheduling, holding extra rounds of internal playoffs (where monetary gains have been solid) and for leverage when negotiating contracts, and because they may lose a member or two to the above factors.

People are wary and handwringing the effects we already see. But what we are feeling is that quick wind of change that hits before the real storm strikes and that storm is coming and is going to be much worse than what is currently feared.
I certainly agree. So much looks unsettling. What survives, and even facets that may flourish more, will look and feel different.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2021 07:18 PM by OdinFrigg.)
03-08-2021 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
(03-08-2021 07:16 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  
(03-08-2021 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-08-2021 03:10 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I wasn't unduly trying to be blunt or contrary.

OK, I didn't name two schools and be definitive as a personal preference. Texas would be one of them if it will be smooth sailing. That's no guarantee.

The problem is predicting the situation approximately three years from now. For the SEC and the B10, there are not vast, enticing, and lucrative options to pursue. Major conferences will not assemble and swap/trade in an amiable, equitable fashion. Perhaps that would be an improved approach, though.

GoRs, TV contracts, state politics, etc. constrain so much. I'd rather see major conferences get together not to swap schools, but establish and standardize a maximum number of schools for each conference. End the GoRs and have reasonable exit fees. It would enhance all major conference stability for the long-term.

Obviously, looking west, Texas and Oklahoma
appear as the strongest, speculative
prospects right now. But new developments two years from now could alter that.

It's an interesting set of problems:

1. Texas and Oklahoma are valuable enough for the Big 10 and SEC to add and they have by far the greatest disparity between top schools in a conference and the rest of that conference in both earnings and the % of the total value of the conference they represent.

2. The ACC will be getting doubled up in media revenue by the SEC and Big 10 and are locked in until after Boomers are statistically gone before they can renew and Boomers and X'ers represent the bulk of college sports viewing now so prospects for a better contract in 2037 are statistically bleak for the ACC.

3. The PAC quite possibly could be worth less than they are currently being paid and certainly not a great deal more like they need. A PAC implosion could reshape all of realignment if Texas and Oklahoma find a way to keep their fiefdom by adding PAC schools. The old core PAC might even consider, when all else fails, to become a West Division of the Big 10, which might result in the SEC and ACC taking a whole new look at reformation.

So yes, there are many variables in play outside of these simple scenarios:
1. Red Ink from COVID losses places pressure on what appear to be secure schools to make quick and radical changes in order to save their athletic departments. Or they drop down in extreme cases.

2. NIL rulings place even more economic pressure on the marginal programs of the P5 forcing some out and place enough forward looking pressure that some bell cows in lesser conferences jump for greener pastures, and I'm talking surprisingly big bell cows from P5's (ACC, PAC, Big 12) and they collect as much as they can get for the future and those left behind form a new, but somewhat lesser paid P4 conference.

3. Pay for Play hits in much the same way as described about the NIL rulings.

4. People turned off by political agendas at their escape time venues don't return, quit donating, even turn off the tube sports. They've had a year of lockdown to find other interests many of which are more hands on enjoyable. The dumb*** AD's that jumped on board the protest bandwagon without considering their audience are going to be in for a very rude awakening when the numbers next year, even without attendance restrictions, don't return to anywhere near the percentages of capacity they enjoyed pre-COVID, and fear of COVID will only be a very small percentage of those absentees.

This too will bring radical pressure for change, just not the changes these puddinheads were thinking about.

5. How long can cable networks survive? Nobody is clear on this one.

I'd say the surest bet is larger conferences for the sake of scheduling, holding extra rounds of internal playoffs (where monetary gains have been solid) and for leverage when negotiating contracts, and because they may lose a member or two to the above factors.

People are wary and handwringing the effects we already see. But what we are feeling is that quick wind of change that hits before the real storm strikes and that storm is coming and is going to be much worse than what is currently feared.
I certainly agree. So much looks unsettling. What survives, and even facets that may flourish more, will look and feel different.

My best guess is that every state will downsize higher education. There aren't as many kids coming up, recent immigrants' children tend not to go to college right away, and the ROI on non STEM degrees isn't very good.

So I think high profile sports will continue to be a draw and that states will start refusing to subsidize G5 schools to the tune of 25% or more for costly teams which duplicate what the major schools in the state are already providing athletically. I see smaller state schools specializing as they did pre WWII and I see them offering and fielding teams that are purely amateur and student driven, but not costly. Junior Colleges will become increasingly VoTech.

Large states will scale back the number of premier programs, especially as continued participation at the grade school level in these sports.

While these things are likely to happen they won't happen overnight so I can see first larger conferences, and then gradually a downsizing.

You might wind up with regions of schools like from North Carolina through Kentucky into Missouri and everything South to Texas with the main state schools participating as well as well established privates. Small states might have just 1 major school that participated in high level athletics.

But the change is going to be dramatic.

I'm thinking N.C. State, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Ole Miss and Miss State, Auburn, Alabama, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State and with these privates Miami, possibly Duke and Vanderbilt. Maybe the Virginia schools are included in the Southeast, maybe not. I think now maybe Louisville makes the cut.

But something along those lines. That way regional networks make sense again for sports rights and streaming would be for all states outside of the region and for all games in region not carried on the regional network. Or perhaps the schools will get smart and produce and manage and sell their own.

We'll see.
03-08-2021 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,795
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #27
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
It’s a tad ironic because in 1990, when the SEC was pondering this very question, the big names on the table were:

Texas
Oklahoma
Clemson
Florida St
TAMU—joined
Arkansas—joined

here we are 31 years later asking the same question and still coming up with the same answers.
03-12-2021 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
(03-12-2021 11:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s a tad ironic because in 1990, when the SEC was pondering this very question, the big names on the table were:

Texas
Oklahoma
Clemson
Florida St
TAMU—joined
Arkansas—joined

here we are 31 years later asking the same question and still coming up with the same answers.

It just means the strategic planning in '92 was pretty solid. Substitute South Carolina for Clemson and take Clemson off of the table. The state is too small for 2 schools which each capture 50% of the state's market. That leaves three.
03-12-2021 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
Not a response to the subject of your post (well considered as always) but to the second piece of advice in your signature - avoiding stupid people is getting harder with every passing day.
03-13-2021 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: If SEC added two teams, who would you prefer?
(03-13-2021 05:28 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Not a response to the subject of your post (well considered as always) but to the second piece of advice in your signature - avoiding stupid people is getting harder with every passing day.
Yes indeed! We need a vaccine for "Stupid" as it is pandemic!
03-13-2021 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.