(08-08-2017 06:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  JR, what do you think about OU, Texas, KU and then Okla St and K-State to satisfy state politicians and then WV to round it off at an even 20?

No chance in heck? Worth it to get the main two/three brands? Though I'm pretty sure you don't consider Okla St to be "extra baggage".

Oklahoma State is extra baggage Bison there's no doubt about that. It's just that OSU with OU permits the SEC to sandbag TV ad rates in the DFW market a little bit more than say Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

I suppose you could make the argument that T.C.U. helps as well and I think there is value in T.C.U. for the ACC or PAC outright due to the intro into that market. The SEC has A&M which certainly gives a significant % of the DFW market already. The feeling is that OU would put us over the top there for boosting add rates, and OSU if required to land OU also spruces those numbers due to alumni and proximity to Oklahoma.

There are only two pairs of brands with little brothers that don't scuttle profitability. Texas with Tech or TCU (as Baylor is now toxic), and Oklahoma with O.S.U.. Of the two pairs OU/OSU is more competitive than Texas / Texas Tech, and probably a wash with Texas / T.C.U..

Kansas State has neither the high value big brother that OSU or TCU/Tech has, nor do they deliver a major market the way any of those three can add to carrying a higher percentage of DFW.

Texas is annually the top, or at worst the 2nd or 3rd leading revenue producer in the nation. The Sooners are floating between 5th and 8th but well within the top 10. Both are huge national brands with history. By themselves they negate the need of another Texas or Oklahoma school, and either substantially increases penetration within the DFW metro. Fortunately for Tech and OSU the likely pairings due to state politics, they still add to the bottom line of any conference (except maybe the Big 10) if paired.

I could see Delany going to 16 and holding his nose on Tech in order to get Texas. The Horns deliver everywhere within the Lone Star state (and the Aggies pretty much do as well). The best part about DFW however is no one school truly maximizes that market. With Texas and A&M together you have it. With A&M and Oklahoma you have it. With A&M and T.C.U. you have it. But with A&M and Tech you don't have nearly as much and the same is true of just A&M and O.S.U.. Substitute Texas for A&M with the same pairings and the same is true.

But poor Kansas will be fortunate to get into the SEC or Big 10 with either Texas or Oklahoma. Kansas could add value for the PAC or the ACC but neither move is likely on their own due to distance. At a 51.1 million projected payout in the Big 10 starting in 2018 I don't see the value in adding Kansas outside of it just being convenient. That's not to say that the Jayhawks lack the value to be added to the Big 10, but it is to say that their value to the Big 10 will be minimal compared to that of an Oklahoma or Texas.

I get the value of Oklahoma with Kansas to the Big 10, but IMO neither of them will do for the Big 10 what Texas would do. Oklahoma gives you a national brand, a population of almost 4 million, and a nice but not over the top % of DFW. Texas gives you 27 million potential viewers and much clearer access to recruiting.

But in order to land either Oklahoma or Texas you are probably going to have to take Tech / OSU respectively to accomplish this feat.

There is only 1 conference that can take Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma and also accommodate the 3 little brothers and that's the PAC. There might be enough value in all 6 to make forming that Eastern Division of 6 worthwhile.

Neither the SEC or Big 10 could find enough value with Kansas to make KState possible. The Big 10 can't take OSU. A R2 school would be outright rejected by the academic consortium. Texas and Tech could sneak in. The SEC could take Texas, Oklahoma, O.S.U. and Tech. It also would permit us to form 3 divisions of 6. But the added value for taking those 4 would be negligible meaning it might only add about 1 or 2 million to our payouts.

A controlling % of DFW is the big prize for the SEC. Just Texas and Tech, or OU and OSU does that. So I think we would only expand to 16 with one of those pairs and politically OU/OSU is less offensive to Aggie than Texas/Tech so that would be the favored get for us.

Considering the Big 10's issues it is possible that if Tech found a home with T.C.U. in the PAC that Texas would be freed to become the travel companion for Kansas which I think ultimately would be the most satisfactory catch for the Big 10.

So if we have any kind of cooperation and Texas doesn't want to be with Aggie anymore than Aggie wants to be with the Horns then there is no ultimate reason for the SEC and Big 10 to be at odds here. That said however the PAC may be at complete odds with both of us and that may even be what would be best ultimately for the sport.

The only way I see Texas headed to the ACC is as a football only member. It would be too costly for their minor sports and if Texas goes as a football only member then between UT & ND the ACC gets a full member in everything plus an extra 5 football games out of ND and that's not too shabby.

So we'll wait and see what the proverbial Bull in the China Shop wants to do.

(08-08-2017 11:43 AM)YNot Wrote:  I'd see WVU as more valuable than Oklahoma St. They bring a new market and another SEC-ACC rivalry game (Pitt). [Or Iowa St. (new market, similar attendance, AAU status, and B1G rival).]

Not really. The population of West Virginia (state) is 1/3 that of Houston (city) and is declining.

Yeah but Oklahoma State is redundant to OU, which is relevant for all of Oklahoma and into Dallas and North Texas. West Virginia is a new market and new state, albeit a small one. Plus, they have an inroads into Maryland, Ohio, Virginia and Pittsburgh.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I suppose you could make the argument that T.C.U. helps as well and I think there is value in T.C.U. for the ACC or PAC outright due to the intro into that market. The SEC has A&M which certainly gives a significant % of the DFW market already. The feeling is that OU would put us over the top there for boosting add rates, and OSU if required to land OU also spruces those numbers due to alumni and proximity to Oklahoma.

There are only two pairs of brands with little brothers that don't scuttle profitability. Texas with Tech or TCU (as Baylor is now toxic), and Oklahoma with O.S.U.. Of the two pairs OU/OSU is more competitive than Texas / Texas Tech, and probably a wash with Texas / T.C.U..

TCU is outright impossible in the PAC or Big 10. They're a non-research school, for all intents and purposes. Even their name goes against the scientific/secular culture of the PAC and Big Ten campuses.

Tech doesn't have that problem, but they're always waaaaay down on the research list. Far lower than even Oklahoma, Okla State, and K-State! That's saying something. Wouldn't say they're impossible for the PAC and Big Ten, but would definitely need the right partner advocating for them.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas State has neither the high value big brother that OSU or TCU/Tech has, nor do they deliver a major market the way any of those three can add to carrying a higher percentage of DFW.

Texas is annually the top, or at worst the 2nd or 3rd leading revenue producer in the nation. The Sooners are floating between 5th and 8th but well within the top 10. Both are huge national brands with history. By themselves they negate the need of another Texas or Oklahoma school, and either substantially increases penetration within the DFW metro. Fortunately for Tech and OSU the likely pairings due to state politics, they still add to the bottom line of any conference (except maybe the Big 10) if paired.

Isn't Kansas in the top ten?? And their corresponding market, though obviously not comparable in value to DFW, is KC.

Granted, I can understand dismissing K-State in the sense that you don't think KU is valuable enough to go after. That is fine, and not incorrect per se. But I vastly think you overestimate Tech's ability to use state politics to attach itself to Texas. The situation there is not at all analogous to the cut-and-dried two flagship situations of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa, in my opinion.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I could see Delany going to 16 and holding his nose on Tech in order to get Texas. The Horns deliver everywhere within the Lone Star state (and the Aggies pretty much do as well). The best part about DFW however is no one school truly maximizes that market. With Texas and A&M together you have it. With A&M and Oklahoma you have it. With A&M and T.C.U. you have it. But with A&M and Tech you don't have nearly as much and the same is true of just A&M and O.S.U.. Substitute Texas for A&M with the same pairings and the same is true.

To land Texas, I agree that almost anything is possible. But without Texas, I'm afraid that Tech simply has the untenable position of being way too low in the research rankings and being way out in the middle of nowhere to warrant attention of the Big Ten.

I suggested that the PAC might be interested if Tech aligned itself with its (very old) former Border Conference rival New Mexico. But that would probably only have a chance if the Big 12 was breaking up, with nothing major going the PAC's way, and the PAC was desperate to expand.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A controlling % of DFW is the big prize for the SEC. Just Texas and Tech, or OU and OSU does that. So I think we would only expand to 16 with one of those pairs and politically OU/OSU is less offensive to Aggie than Texas/Tech so that would be the favored get for us.

Considering the Big 10's issues it is possible that if Tech found a home with T.C.U. in the PAC that Texas would be freed to become the travel companion for Kansas which I think ultimately would be the most satisfactory catch for the Big 10.

If it's just the SEC and Big Ten going to 16, and one having to take Texas/Kansas while the other takes OU/Okla St, then I agree that SEC taking the Okla schools and Big Ten taking Texas Kansas would be, by far, the Big Ten's choice.

(08-09-2017 04:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but Oklahoma State is redundant to OU, which is relevant for all of Oklahoma and into Dallas and North Texas. West Virginia is a new market and new state, albeit a small one. Plus, they have an inroads into Maryland, Ohio, Virginia and Pittsburgh.

This might be exactly correct ..... but Okla state and even federal elected representatives simply won't care. TBP won't care. They'll call in every chip/political favor/blackmail they can muster ... to make sure that Okla St goes with OU to the SEC.

(08-09-2017 09:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I suppose you could make the argument that T.C.U. helps as well and I think there is value in T.C.U. for the ACC or PAC outright due to the intro into that market. The SEC has A&M which certainly gives a significant % of the DFW market already. The feeling is that OU would put us over the top there for boosting add rates, and OSU if required to land OU also spruces those numbers due to alumni and proximity to Oklahoma.

There are only two pairs of brands with little brothers that don't scuttle profitability. Texas with Tech or TCU (as Baylor is now toxic), and Oklahoma with O.S.U.. Of the two pairs OU/OSU is more competitive than Texas / Texas Tech, and probably a wash with Texas / T.C.U..

TCU is outright impossible in the PAC or Big 10. They're a non-research school, for all intents and purposes. Even their name goes against the scientific/secular culture of the PAC and Big Ten campuses.

Tech doesn't have that problem, but they're always waaaaay down on the research list. Far lower than even Oklahoma, Okla State, and K-State! That's saying something. Wouldn't say they're impossible for the PAC and Big Ten, but would definitely need the right partner advocating for them.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas State has neither the high value big brother that OSU or TCU/Tech has, nor do they deliver a major market the way any of those three can add to carrying a higher percentage of DFW.

Texas is annually the top, or at worst the 2nd or 3rd leading revenue producer in the nation. The Sooners are floating between 5th and 8th but well within the top 10. Both are huge national brands with history. By themselves they negate the need of another Texas or Oklahoma school, and either substantially increases penetration within the DFW metro. Fortunately for Tech and OSU the likely pairings due to state politics, they still add to the bottom line of any conference (except maybe the Big 10) if paired.

Isn't Kansas in the top ten?? And their corresponding market, though obviously not comparable in value to DFW, is KC.

Granted, I can understand dismissing K-State in the sense that you don't think KU is valuable enough to go after. That is fine, and not incorrect per se. But I vastly think you overestimate Tech's ability to use state politics to attach itself to Texas. The situation there is not at all analogous to the cut-and-dried two flagship situations of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa, in my opinion.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I could see Delany going to 16 and holding his nose on Tech in order to get Texas. The Horns deliver everywhere within the Lone Star state (and the Aggies pretty much do as well). The best part about DFW however is no one school truly maximizes that market. With Texas and A&M together you have it. With A&M and Oklahoma you have it. With A&M and T.C.U. you have it. But with A&M and Tech you don't have nearly as much and the same is true of just A&M and O.S.U.. Substitute Texas for A&M with the same pairings and the same is true.

To land Texas, I agree that almost anything is possible. But without Texas, I'm afraid that Tech simply has the untenable position of being way too low in the research rankings and being way out in the middle of nowhere to warrant attention of the Big Ten.

I suggested that the PAC might be interested if Tech aligned itself with its (very old) former Border Conference rival New Mexico. But that would probably only have a chance if the Big 12 was breaking up, with nothing major going the PAC's way, and the PAC was desperate to expand.

(08-08-2017 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A controlling % of DFW is the big prize for the SEC. Just Texas and Tech, or OU and OSU does that. So I think we would only expand to 16 with one of those pairs and politically OU/OSU is less offensive to Aggie than Texas/Tech so that would be the favored get for us.

Considering the Big 10's issues it is possible that if Tech found a home with T.C.U. in the PAC that Texas would be freed to become the travel companion for Kansas which I think ultimately would be the most satisfactory catch for the Big 10.

If it's just the SEC and Big Ten going to 16, and one having to take Texas/Kansas while the other takes OU/Okla St, then I agree that SEC taking the Okla schools and Big Ten taking Texas Kansas would be, by far, the Big Ten's choice.

(08-09-2017 04:45 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Yeah but Oklahoma State is redundant to OU, which is relevant for all of Oklahoma and into Dallas and North Texas. West Virginia is a new market and new state, albeit a small one. Plus, they have an inroads into Maryland, Ohio, Virginia and Pittsburgh.

This might be exactly correct ..... but Okla state and even federal elected representatives simply won't care. TBP won't care. They'll call in every chip/political favor/blackmail they can muster ... to make sure that Okla St goes with OU to the SEC.

Bison, T.C.U.'s seminary now operates separate from the rest of the University's polity. The have even changed their name to the initials that once represented it. And I said they would add value and made no research claims. They make more than the majority of PAC schools in revenue and the markets as I suggested would help the PAC. Paired with Tech they would be an economic boost to the PAC in terms of TV revenue. I specifically mentioned the PAC and ACC because they are well above the revenue mean of both and because both have, or will have networks that could use the boost that the DFW market would bring. That was the sum of my argument. I only responded because their religious affiliation is a non issue since the seminary has zero influence over their academic freedom or the polity that governs their undergraduate studies. The difference between T.C.U. and B.Y.U. is massive in that regard. And you do know that U.S.C. was founded by the Methodists?

The religious issue may be a non-factor, fine. But TCU's (as well as Tech's) numbers speak for themselves: https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2015/html...ST_21.html Interesting to note that Tech is furiously pumping up its numbers with institutional funds, to make it appear like they're much better in research than they are (with respect to competitive grants).

Those numbers for TCU, though, are a non-starter for the PAC and Big Ten, regardless of market. All the better for the ACC and/or SEC, I guess, and that's just fine with me.

(08-09-2017 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The religious issue may be a non-factor, fine. But TCU's (as well as Tech's) numbers speak for themselves: https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2015/html...ST_21.html Interesting to note that Tech is furiously pumping up its numbers with institutional funds, to make it appear like they're much better in research than they are (with respect to competitive grants).

Those numbers for TCU, though, are a non-starter for the PAC and Big Ten, regardless of market. All the better for the ACC and/or SEC, I guess, and that's just fine with me.

Agreed, due to research profile alone TCU isn't getting into the Big Ten under any scenario. PAC only very marginally more likely (still pretty much zero chance) and I only see that happening if paired with Texas and if they are somehow pushed into it by the networks for DFW.

Institutionally ACC is probably the best fit for TCU in terms of a group of private schools that are somewhat similar. ACC has way more privates than any other P5 league.

Duke and semi-private Pitt are massive research schools. U Miami is pretty high up too. Wake isn't high up, but no slouch. Syracuse is middling. However, Boston College is pretty low ... that's the most comparable for TCU.

(08-09-2017 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Duke and semi-private Pitt are massive research schools. U Miami is pretty high up too. Wake isn't high up, but no slouch. Syracuse is middling. However, Boston College is pretty low ... that's the most comparable for TCU.

Yes i'm well aware that a lot of the privates also have much higher research activity than TCU. There is a solid relationship between having a med school on campus and being high in research dollars; Duke, Miami, and Pitt all have med schools.

But either way my statement still holds true that institutionally (which includes a lot more than just research dollars) TCU is much more of a peer to a school like Miami than they are to say a Washington State or Indiana.

(08-09-2017 11:35 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Duke and semi-private Pitt are massive research schools. U Miami is pretty high up too. Wake isn't high up, but no slouch. Syracuse is middling. However, Boston College is pretty low ... that's the most comparable for TCU.

Yes i'm well aware that a lot of the privates also have much higher research activity than TCU. There is a solid relationship between having a med school on campus and being high in research dollars; Duke, Miami, and Pitt all have med schools.

But either way my statement still holds true that institutionally (which includes a lot more than just research dollars) TCU is much more of a peer to a school like Miami than they are to say a Washington State or Indiana.

TCU would be welcomed in the ACC. There is no academic freedom problem and no academic stature or general admissions problem. Duke's seminary does not get in the way of their research or mission. What makes Baylor different from ND or BC can be found in their mission statements and statements regarding academic freedom and a the duty to promote an evangelical Baptist world view above all other considerations. This is the stigma that goes with Baylor.

Are you sure that's true about Baylor?

If so, then that would make it equivalent to a "Waco Baptist BYU". If that is the case, then I'm fully in favor of Baylor going independent in football, like BYU, and finding a suitable non-P5 conf for its other sports, perhaps AAC or CUSA.

Yep Baylor has religious requirements that are different than like what you see at a TCU or SMU for example.

At Baylor, undergraduates must complete two semesters of "chapel" as a requirement for graduating from Baylor. You must attend at least 75% of the chapel sessions in each semester for that to count...in other words they more or less have mandatory church. Now the website doesn't say anything about it...but I would be shocked if this said chapel was anything but Baptist in nature.

From Baylor's website
"During the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, prestigious institutions of higher education founded on Christian principles began a relentless retreat from their spiritual heritage. During that time and into the Twenty-first Century, Baylor has remained one of the few to persist in the belief that not only can its Baptist heritage inform a vital approach to life in general, it can also inform the life of the mind specifically.

Baylor continues to hold firm to the conviction that the world needs a preeminent research university that is unambiguously Christian, where such a commitment does not imply a lack of scholarly inquiry, but rather requires scholarship and creative endeavors at the highest levels of quality to complement and inform its teaching and service."

At TCU for comparison to graduate you need one course (3 credit hours) of religion. There are a lot of courses that fulfill this requirement, some that are scripture based and some that are not. For example I took sociology of religion in Latin America which looked more at the impact of religion over time on Latin American society including not only Christianity but also religions such as Santeria.

Classes such as "Buddhism: Thought and Practice", "Caribbean Religions", "History of Sacred Music", or "Women in the Middle East" also fulfill this religion requirement or if you want classes such as "The Bible"

TCU seems like a fit for the ACC - if everyone can deal with the distance. TCU + Texas is very interesting to the ACC, IMO.

The ESPN plan is to recreate the old Southern Conference that had 23 at it's max but then split off twice.

This is the best 36 team split I can make with a division that explicity encourages ND to play an 8-9 game conference slate:

These are 6 school divisions with two permanent partners in the other division to encourage rivalries, attendence, etc:
ACC

West/Central/East
Florida State/Clemson/Miami
Texas/NC State/WF
Notre Dame/Georgia Tech/Navy
TCU/UNC/Louisville
Pitt/ Virginia/Virginia Tech
Boston College/Duke/Syracuse

Clemson for example would always play FSU/Miami/NC State/GT/NCSU/Virginia/Duke - once every five years they play Texas/ND/TCU/Pitt/BC and WF/Navy/Louisiville/Syracuse - it's a 5-2-2 format - division winners and a wildcard meet for a 4 school playoff.

SEC

West/Gulf/East
Kansas/LSU/Georgia
Oklahoma/Ole Miss/Florida
Ok State/MSU/South Carolina
TAMU/Alabama/Auburn
Arkansas/Tennessee/Kentucky
Mizzou/Vandy/West Virginia

Bama for example would always play LSU/Ole Miss/MSU/Tennessee/Vandy/Auburn/Texas A&M.

This set up puts most of the old Big 8 back under one division. Same as the ACC - three division champs and a wild card.

This gives ESPN control over 36 programs and keeps Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas from the B10 or P12.

Integrating Texas into the State of NC as a means of integrating Texas into the ACC would be important. Satisfying Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, and MSU with regards to Alabama, but giving Auburn back to the east would be important to the SEC. West Va places the SEC into the DC and Pittsburgh markets.

Typical ACC playoff might be Texas/Clemson/VT with FSU or ND as the wild card.
Typical SEC playoff might be Oklahoma/Alabama/Florida with Georgia or LSU as the wild card.

OOC games that would be interesting would be WVa and Pitt/VT, Texas and Oklahoma/TAMU, Navy and Air Force/Army, etc.

Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, and Baylor are on the outside under a scenario like this.

Might as well just create two Giga-conferences then, and call them what they really are: the ESPN conference and the FOX conference.

ESPN conf gets basically the biggest/best from the old ACC, Big East, SEC, SWC, and Big 8. FOX conf gets the Big Ten and PAC, with perhaps picking up UConn and Iowa St.


And the ESPN conf might as well take K-State and Texas Tech, at that point what's two more when it will avoid a bunch of state politician bellyaching?

I don't see why there would be much interest in any of them.

The argument that TCU somehow commands a market is a bit off in my opinion.

You'd be far better off with Texas/A&M/Tech in that order if you wanted the Dallas area. Mere geographic location isn't enough.

(08-09-2017 04:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  TCU seems like a fit for the ACC - if everyone can deal with the distance. TCU + Texas is very interesting to the ACC, IMO.

No.

(08-13-2017 09:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 04:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  TCU seems like a fit for the ACC - if everyone can deal with the distance. TCU + Texas is very interesting to the ACC, IMO.

No.

I would take Texas, TCU, Houston & ND fully. This would boost both the ACCN payouts & the tv contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-14-2017 07:01 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 09:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(08-09-2017 04:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  TCU seems like a fit for the ACC - if everyone can deal with the distance. TCU + Texas is very interesting to the ACC, IMO.

No.

I would take Texas, TCU, Houston & ND fully. This would boost both the ACCN payouts & the tv contract.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^^^ THIS ^^^. That would boost ACC payouts significantly, IMO.

Why not, right? The ACC long ago chose to sell its traditional/cultural/geographic soul in order to better compete head to head with the SEC.