(07-01-2022 06:07 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: I am finding all this out a day late. But I seriously doubt that Sankey and the SEC were as shocked by it all as I was.
If the Big 10 stops at 16-20 (Oregon/Stanford/Washington/ND), then I don't think the SEC has to do anything.
OK/Texas fits the SEC. USC/UCLA is a market grab, albeit a huge and effective one.
There are no "market grab" schools available to the SEC at the moment.
If the Big goes to 24, then the potential for the ACC GOR to be broken gets larger. FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State, UNC, Duke, UVAa nd GT/Pitt are all options at that point.
But the question is what will get paid for. Assuming the Rose becomes a Big 10 championship game, it will get very interesting very quick.
I think we all know the usual suspects who make sense for the SEC when the ACC GOR is figured out, whether this month or in the mid 2030's. What interests me is what could have been for the SEC had several schools been in different situations when this USC/UCLA move arose.
With Texas and Oklahoma now in the stall, there could have been an opportunity for the SEC to swoop through and basically become the "Southern Conference" because it would have been the conference of the southwest and southeast. Outside of a few ivory towers within their premier schools, the regular population within the states of Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are quite similar to most of our footprint. Culturally and politically, Colorado leans a bit blue and Utah/Kansas a bit red with Arizona as a swing. Missouri, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky (not to mention the Nashville metro with Vanderbilt) live in this realm, and we all get along just fine. None of them are revenue adders to the current and future SEC, which is ultimately why it will not happen. However, what could have made each of them viable?
Kansas - Some semblance of hope for at least consistent mediocrity out of their football program. They are already in the neighborhood when it comes to annual revenue to be a break-even add, but they are a tough pill to swallow because of the most important sport.
Colorado - Feels like a carbon copy of Missouri with a bit less recent on-field success. Tremendous upside as state in the coming decades for a futures bet wherever they land.
Utah - I think they would fit the SEC like a glove in many cultural regards, but there is just not enough juice to start with in terms of revenue generation, and it will take them decades to grow into it, especially with how much of their state is federal government-owned land that cannot be privately developed for population growth/industry. If the full state was behind them instead of split with BYU, they would have a much stronger profile.
Arizona - Years and years ago, if this state had decided to operate athletics like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and so many other states who only push up one institution for power athletics, then they would have a juggernaut on their hands. I think either the University of Arizona or Arizona State University could have been the choice, although ASU's physical location would have been preferred. Independently, I can't talk myself into either for SEC consideration in a world where only two significant conferences exist at the highest level. If there had been only one obvious choice in the state, though, you'd have a $150 million plus school that would be driving the bus in the PAC-12. However, that is also an excuse. The University of Oklahoma has found a way to emerge as a juggernaut with a brother in state, and they definitely don't have any more to work with than the folks in the Arizona schools.
In all, I wish we were talking about how we could pick away Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and either ASU/UA today, but if they had the types of profiles we are seeking, the PAC likely does not find itself in this situation, anyway.