Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
Author Message
44AndThe23 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 78
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Cuse
Location: Bville
Post: #1
Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
As always apologize if already posted.


http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...big-12nbsp
06-07-2016 12:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
One hint. No ACC Network either. There is gonna be a mass defection from the ACC.
06-07-2016 01:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,264
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1205
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #3
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 01:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  One hint. No ACC Network either. There is gonna be a mass defection from the ACC.

What have you been right about?
06-07-2016 02:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RIFRAF Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 232
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 16
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
May not come to pass, but there is a great deal of financial logic in that article.
06-07-2016 06:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 02:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 01:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  One hint. No ACC Network either. There is gonna be a mass defection from the ACC.

What have you been right about?

Not a thing....04-cheers
06-07-2016 07:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #6
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
The ACC may loose a couple of teams but I don't see a "mass" defection.

Quote:Do you really think FSU is going to sit idly by while the Gators are making $250 million-per-decade more than the Seminoles are making?

(Per USA Today) Over the last decade, the Gators have made $290 million more than the Seminoles. FSU seems to be doing just fine.
06-07-2016 07:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GTTiger Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 207
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: GT and Clemson
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
"ESPN has lost millions of subscribers in recent years due to cable cord-cutters who now watch TV via online streaming. As a result, the Worldwide Leader is no mood to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into a conference network.

What this means is the SEC, Big Ten and possibly the Pac-12 (although its network isn't nearly as successful) will continue to reap additional money from their still-growing networks while the ACC and Big 12's TV money stagnates."

So ESPN will lose subscribers through cord cutting, and the SEC and Big 10 will magically gain subscribers because they are immune to cord cutting?

This is West Virginia blogger worthy writing.
06-07-2016 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nebraskafan Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,342
Joined: Jul 2015
I Root For: Nebreaska
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
People....the ACC is not losing a single school untill someone challenges the GOR and wins.

By the time the ACC GOR is expired, the Big 12 will likely be gone. Thus, little desire for more expansion into the ACC.
06-07-2016 07:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
Dumb, "throw something against the wall with no reason" article.

I can't see any of them getting voted in with the possible exception of OU and even they are only about 33% pro-SEC move (with the other 2/3rds wanting either the PAC or B1G)

People, it's pretty simple stuff.

The last frontier for the SEC is getting a VA/NC combo to complete the footprint.

Adding those two states is adding another Florida to the population footprint.

NOBODY else can bring that kind of money to the league.

Which means we bide our time and wait for our chance. The league waited 20 years to get into Texas so patience to get the real prizes worth having is not a problem.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 08:37 AM by 10thMountain.)
06-07-2016 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,165
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 255
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 08:26 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Dumb, "throw something against the wall with no reason" article.

I can't see any of them getting voted in with the possible exception of OU and even they are only about 33% pro-SEC move (with the other 2/3rds wanting either the PAC or B1G)

+1

plus, its just an article stating the obvious. Any of the ACC or Big 12 teams (outside of maybe Texas) would jump at an SEC invite.......... its just that I see no point in expanding SEC at this moment or in the near future............... and there is no way in hell FSU is getting invited.
06-07-2016 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sellular1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,233
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 186
I Root For: USF
Location: The ATL
Post: #11
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 07:43 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  "ESPN has lost millions of subscribers in recent years due to cable cord-cutters who now watch TV via online streaming. As a result, the Worldwide Leader is no mood to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into a conference network.

What this means is the SEC, Big Ten and possibly the Pac-12 (although its network isn't nearly as successful) will continue to reap additional money from their still-growing networks while the ACC and Big 12's TV money stagnates."

So ESPN will lose subscribers through cord cutting, and the SEC and Big 10 will magically gain subscribers because they are immune to cord cutting?

This is West Virginia blogger worthy writing.

This whole "cord cutting" thing is a little nebulous. The "cord" is just the transport. ESPN (or contracted affiliate) is still there televising, announcing, and broadcasting the game. It not like your grandma is there streaming the game via Periscope. You're just consuming the game via another format. I get that ESPN loses $6 per month per sub when you ditch your provider. If ESPN locks down on the events themselves instead of the transport, it will go to a PPV model if you don't subscribe to the Disney family of channels.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 08:44 AM by Sellular1.)
06-07-2016 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #12
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
Texas had the option to go to the SEC in the early 90s. Their BOT was repulsed at the SEC culture and said no, emphatically. (The SEC took Arkansas instead). I don't see that changing in my lifetime.
06-07-2016 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #13
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
So the SEC buys Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and FSU. I assume the Big 10 buys Kansas, UVA, Duke, and UNC. So if this is a battle of the conference networks, who wins?

Answer: the Big Ten Network, hands down. The Big 10 network gets 3 new states, and the SEC network gets 1 new state.
06-07-2016 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTTiger Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 207
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: GT and Clemson
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 08:43 AM)Sellular1 Wrote:  
(06-07-2016 07:43 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  "ESPN has lost millions of subscribers in recent years due to cable cord-cutters who now watch TV via online streaming. As a result, the Worldwide Leader is no mood to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into a conference network.

What this means is the SEC, Big Ten and possibly the Pac-12 (although its network isn't nearly as successful) will continue to reap additional money from their still-growing networks while the ACC and Big 12's TV money stagnates."

So ESPN will lose subscribers through cord cutting, and the SEC and Big 10 will magically gain subscribers because they are immune to cord cutting?

This is West Virginia blogger worthy writing.

This whole "cord cutting" thing is a little nebulous. The "cord" is just the transport. ESPN (or contracted affiliate) is still there televising, announcing, and broadcasting the game. It not like your grandma is there streaming the game via Periscope. You're just consuming the game via another format. I get that ESPN loses $6 per month per sub when you ditch your provider. If ESPN locks down on the events themselves instead of the transport, it will go to a PPV model if you don't subscribe to the Disney family of channels.

The question no critic seems to be able to answer is how all of cable is losing subscribers, but the SECN and Big 10 Network will just grow and grow?
06-07-2016 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #15
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 12:33 AM)44AndThe23 Wrote:  As always apologize if already posted.


http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...big-12nbsp

[Image: BS.jpg]

07-coffee3
06-07-2016 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nebraskafan Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,342
Joined: Jul 2015
I Root For: Nebreaska
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 08:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Texas had the option to go to the SEC in the early 90s. Their BOT was repulsed at the SEC culture and said no, emphatically. (The SEC took Arkansas instead). I don't see that changing in my lifetime.

This. And it is no different today.
06-07-2016 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Artifice Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,063
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Beer
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
Doesn't the SEC require unanimous votes for additions, thereby granting any single program veto power?

If so, why would A&M, USC or UF not veto Texas, Clemson and FSU?

[edit] Tried to fact check this - and came across a 2011 foxpsorts article prior to Mizzou and A&M additions:

Quote:What kind of vote is required to add a member? Nine of the 12 of the SEC presidents must vote in favor of expansion

source: http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tes-081211

however, it goes on to say:

Quote:but, and here’s the kicker – those who I talked to said that the SEC would expect the presidents to act unanimously. This would square with Commissioner Mike Slive's typical management style. When the SEC undertakes an expansive step, it wants to assure that everyone is on board, not just the majority.

I've been told that a single dissenting vote might be acceptable, but that if any two presidents opposed the inclusion of a new school, it would be unlikely that school would join the conference.

I had always heard it required a unanimous vote, but this could very well be the case - that it has been convention that the league has operated that way. Not sure if they would change now, but if they did, it would make this scenario possible.

verification of 75% requirement: http://cdn.knoxblogs.com/evanseleven/wp-...tution.pdf :

Quote:*3.1.2 Granting of Membership. Membership may be granted by invitation of the Conference at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least three-fourths of the members is required to extend an invitation for membership. [Revised 5/30/91] [Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 10:16 AM by Artifice.)
06-07-2016 09:52 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: #18
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 08:54 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  So the SEC buys Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and FSU. I assume the Big 10 buys Kansas, UVA, Duke, and UNC. So if this is a battle of the conference networks, who wins?

Answer: the Big Ten Network, hands down. The Big 10 network gets 3 new states, and the SEC network gets 1 new state.

I've remained silent on your B.S. for quite some time. Texas didn't reject the SEC in '91 they were interested. In fact they approached us first. It's just that they knew the SWC days were numbered and they were doing due diligence to determine their value. They approached the Big 10 and the PAC as well. The SEC and PAC were willing to take friends.

The SEC was looking at expansion to 16 with Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Clemson, and Florida State with a silent school agreeing to come based upon Texas & Texas A&M's inclusion. That school was Oklahoma.

Texas after the huge scandals of the SWC might have been looking for less attention upon recruiting violations, but the sins of the old SWC made the ole payola of the SEC look tame by comparison.

BTW, the SEC has not yet had the egg on its face that Ohio State did under Tressel with coeds providing favors to recruits, or like the atrocities at Penn State. So stow the Big 10 crap.

But getting back to the point, Texas was more interested in the PAC, mostly because of shared research with schools out West and A&M was more interested in the SEC due to history with LSU and ties to Alabama. Arkansas just wanted out. But before resolution Baylor disrupted Texas politics and hamstrung the attempts of Texas an A&M to get out.

Clemson was never anything but tepid and South Carolina heard about the play with Clemson through the good ole boy system in their state and applied.

Bowden reportedly wanted the easier path to championships that the ACC provided, at least that was the cover story. Behind the scenes ESPN feared the SEC would gain too much leverage with F.S.U. and they provided the lure that helped to close the deal with the ACC.

This piece by the Orlando Sentinel is a speculation piece based on information that is 25 years old.

Now as to your assertions, markets aren't even the motivator any longer, at least not the extent they were in 2010. Content is the safest bet for moving forward as streaming will play a larger part of the delivery model and the footprint pay model is likely going to replaced with one that pays for the viewers.

If the latter happens the Big 10 is at a significant disadvantage, but not one as severely disadvantaged as the ACC & PAC. The SEC and Big 12 actually both saturate their markets more efficiently than does the Big 10 (3rd among the P5 in saturation) and the ACC & PAC (nip & tuck for last place).

Think of it this way. The Big 10 has two unquestioned national brands and 4 more that draw the nations eyeballs. They don't all play each other either. Therefore they have fewer than 10 T1 games in conference that draw national attention. If they schedule some top names OOC they only have those games to sell half of the time.

If we move to streaming or some form of paying only actual viewers (even though the Big 10 has more potential viewers) the additions of Rutgers and Maryland aren't going to prove as profitable as they were under the footprint model.

But long term, paying for actual viewers will become a point of contention on simply keeping any conference together under an equal pay model. So we'll see. The Alabama's, Ohio State's, Texas's, Florida's and Michigan's of the world are going to get darned tired of supporting the Purdue's, Indiana's, Maryland's, Vanderbilt's, Mississippi State's, T.C.U.'s, Kansas State's, Oregon State's and Washington State's of the world, let alone the Wake Forest's.

Those of you born after 1980 won't be familiar with what I'm about to say, but those of you born before 1960 will. In the early 70's there was some serious discussion about doing away with conference boundaries and taking the top 24 to 36 revenue producers and forming a kind of a league. Old ties and neighborly rivals prevented it. I wouldn't be surprised to see some iteration of that concept rotate back into the discussion at some point.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 10:03 AM by JRsec.)
06-07-2016 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
JR,

I disagree with your assumption about how pay-TV is going to be funded. It will still be funded by carriage fees. HOWEVER, I think it will be a competition of national streaming systems (Sling, VUE, Hulu, YouTube, DirecTV is going to become like Sling, etc.), instead of cable networks that are local/regional blocks of subs in independent networks. Those block networks are going to be just for ISP. Cities/municipalities won't even need to have a contract with a cable provider, anymore.

And the channels aren't going to want to hamstring themselves with their fees being based on subs, anymore. They're going to want a guaranteed amount of money, which will be negotiated based on viewership ... which statistics will be much better provided from the digital streaming bundle pay-TV age.
(This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 10:17 AM by MplsBison.)
06-07-2016 10:16 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: #20
RE: Columnist: SEC will have world domination, poach the best of Big 12
(06-07-2016 09:52 AM)Artifice Wrote:  Doesn't the SEC require unanimous votes for additions, thereby granting any single program veto power?

If so, why would A&M, USC or UF not veto Texas, Clemson and FSU?

[edit] Tried to fact check this - and came across a 2011 foxpsorts article prior to Mizzou and A&M additions:

Quote:What kind of vote is required to add a member? Nine of the 12 of the SEC presidents must vote in favor of expansion

source: http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tes-081211

however, it goes on to say:

Quote:but, and here’s the kicker – those who I talked to said that the SEC would expect the presidents to act unanimously. This would square with Commissioner Mike Slive's typical management style. When the SEC undertakes an expansive step, it wants to assure that everyone is on board, not just the majority.

I've been told that a single dissenting vote might be acceptable, but that if any two presidents opposed the inclusion of a new school, it would be unlikely that school would join the conference.

I had always heard it required a unanimous vote, but this could very well be the case - that it has been convention that the league has operated that way. Not sure if they would change now, but if they did, it would make this scenario possible.

Another internet myth. There is no "gentlemen's agreement". The way the SEC admission procedures work is that we receive an application. If the metrics of the conference are met (think required number of sports, standardized facilities guidelines, etc.) we take a vote. The first vote is unofficial and is done by individual voice vote of the presidents. If after that vote a candidate has 3/4's of the total vote a second vote is held. That vote must be unanimous. Abstentions are permitted, but the vote shall be unanimous. We don't want an entrant having to deal with a press release saying there was division about their inclusion. That's just a good business practice and makes for better long term relations.

As to your insinuation that there would be block votes against in state rivals, college presidents of state institutions have two good reasons never to block their in state rivals. 1. They are both funded by the same state legislature and it would be stupid to hurt your state and its taxpayers by keeping another state school from making as much money as it could, or by ticking off representatives who graduated from your rival but who also vote on your appropriations. 2. The in state rivals are almost always the most important game on the schedule and realignment has, and will, threaten some of those rivalries.

Because of this Florida sponsored Florida State's membership in '91 and were was willing to do so again in 2011. South Carolina expressed a desire to include Clemson in '91. Georgia was questioned about Tech and they weren't against it. Only Kentucky expressed reservations.

Aggie fans will tell you that A&M would resist Texas. I'm sure their fans feel that way but the administration likely doesn't, but the abstention is there for their cover in situations like this.

The University Presidents aren't going to vote against a school with Texas's academic credentials and they certainly aren't going to vote themselves out of more money.

So this whole line of thinking is nothing more than internet fan fiction. How do I know this? I've had family in the room when the votes were held.

The term "gentlemen's agreement" was used, and was used by Mike Slive in 2011. It was his request for Florida and South Carolina not to nominate F.S.U. and Clemson for positions #13 & #14 in the SEC. Why? Because we could not renegotiate our contract unless 2 new markets were added. That was the stipulation of the renegotiation clause. Slive went on to say that for future additions this would not be a restriction and as along as a candidate added value for everyone they would be eligible.

Now that the footprint model is fading and a payout for content is more likely in the future due to streaming and other delivery modes Florida State, Clemson, and Texas all would add revenue.

I'm not saying that is who we will go after because ESPN is an impediment to Florida State and Clemson, but I am saying there will be no SEC bias against them.
06-07-2016 10:24 AM
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.