Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
Author Message
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #221
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
(05-14-2013 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Anyway that's why I don't think that Texas and Oklahoma will move to the SEC even if they had a desire to do so. Slive has no room for a third Texas team and Oklahoma is too small of a state to justify taking two. So the SEC will simply pass on both of them. That makes the remaining prizes Kansas and West Virginia which is what Slive would shoot for. Kansas will go Big 10 at the first opportunity. It's their best fit and it's a good fit for the Big 10 as well. So I think LSUtah's analysis of this is pretty much dead on. If anything happens to the Big 12 look for the SEC to take Kansas State (bigger state than Oklahoma) and West Virginia.

The SEC would be making a big mistake if it let Texas and Oklahoma, two of the top-ten blue-blood football programs, get away to the PAC or B1G without putting up a serious fight for them. IMO, the only schools out there that merit SEC expansion attention are:

1) Texas
2) UNC
3) Oklahoma
4) Virginia

If none of those will come then the SEC is better off not expanding at all.

Agreed, quo. At this stage in the game, I just don't see any way the SEC takes a state/tech/private school. If Kansas was ever in a position to leave the Big 12, the B1G would be dumb to not let them in. They are a perfect fit for them. If they are dumb enough, I would put Kansas at #5 on your SEC expansion list and WVU as a #6 that would be added only to round out to #16, #18, or #20 if needed.
05-14-2013 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #222
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
(05-14-2013 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Anyway that's why I don't think that Texas and Oklahoma will move to the SEC even if they had a desire to do so. Slive has no room for a third Texas team and Oklahoma is too small of a state to justify taking two. So the SEC will simply pass on both of them. That makes the remaining prizes Kansas and West Virginia which is what Slive would shoot for. Kansas will go Big 10 at the first opportunity. It's their best fit and it's a good fit for the Big 10 as well. So I think LSUtah's analysis of this is pretty much dead on. If anything happens to the Big 12 look for the SEC to take Kansas State (bigger state than Oklahoma) and West Virginia.

The SEC would be making a big mistake if it let Texas and Oklahoma, two of the top-ten blue-blood football programs, get away to the PAC or B1G without putting up a serious fight for them. IMO, the only schools out there that merit SEC expansion attention are:

1) Texas
2) UNC
3) Oklahoma
4) Virginia

If none of those will come then the SEC is better off not expanding at all.

I hope you would be right here QV but I don't see how we get them without going to 18. At that point we might as well go after West Virginia and one more for 20. I'm not sure the networks or anyone else will want to let us do that (unless it is ESPN).

The way I see it we have 3 national brands in the Big 12 and one strong regional brand (WVU). The SEC needs two to get to 16, The Big 10 needs two to get to 16, and the PAC needs 4 to finish out. The ACC could take two as well. The SEC wants flagship state universities. The Big 10 wants flagship state universities that are AAU. The PAC is more flexible like the SEC but wants what the Big 10 wants. The ACC will take private schools. The breakdown of the Big 12 has 4 schools that meet the SEC's criteria, 3 that meet the criteria of the Big 10, 5 that would meet the usual criteria of the ACC, and 7 that could meet the criteria of the PAC.

If FOX and ESPN cooperate here then each conference that takes teams will have to take a flagship, and one that would be on their margin. Otherwise this deal doesn't get done.

If the networks broker it I would look for the SEC to get at best 1 national brand and West Virginia to get to 16. But in all likelihood the SEC will get 1 new state and West Virginia.

The Big 10's best shot here would be Oklahoma and Kansas (even though OU isn't AAU). But, in all likelihood the Big 10 gets Kansas and settles for Iowa State (unless it decides to pick up UConn).

I don't see ESPN giving up on Texas so I see the Horns headed to the ACC as a hybrid so they can keep the LHN or as a full member if N.D. would join with them (won't happen). This could either happen singulary or with T.C.U. and Baylor going with the Horns to the ACC as full members.

In one scenario the PAC gets one national brand in Oklahoma. But they pick up Kansas State, Texas Tech, and possibly Iowa State if the Big 10 goes for UConn, or T.C.U. if they don't. That gives them DFW and West Texas, a national brand and 3 central time zone states to expand their content via time slot. If Oklahoma insists upon Oklahoma State coming along then I think the SEC would take Kansas State to pick up the larger of the remaining states on the table. There is a lot of negotiating room in any direction here except with the Big 10.

It's possible too that ESPN brings Texas to the ACC so that they can morph the LHN into an ACC network and add Texas to the ACC market footprint for the new network. If they do this then look for Texas to bring along either Baylor or T.C.U..

And these aren't the only possibilities either, but all I'll discuss right now.

So my point is that I just don't see the conference pressures, or network pressures allowing any 1 conference to cherry pick two national brands from the Big 12 without taking some of the others. Therefore 1 national brand or regional brand is the best that any of the remaining conferences could hope for if homes for all ten Big 12 schools are negotiated. Since the elimination of the 5th conference ups everyone's share of playoff revenue there is incentive to be accommodating.

And then again, the Big 12 could add two more cement itself and then if we want sixteen teams we start looking at our periphery for suitable candidates. Then as Vandiver and others have pointed out teams like Cincinnati, East Carolina, Southern Methodist, and South Florida are examined for their upside and their actual and potential market value.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 06:55 AM by JRsec.)
05-14-2013 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #223
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
(05-14-2013 12:52 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Anyway that's why I don't think that Texas and Oklahoma will move to the SEC even if they had a desire to do so. Slive has no room for a third Texas team and Oklahoma is too small of a state to justify taking two. So the SEC will simply pass on both of them. That makes the remaining prizes Kansas and West Virginia which is what Slive would shoot for. Kansas will go Big 10 at the first opportunity. It's their best fit and it's a good fit for the Big 10 as well. So I think LSUtah's analysis of this is pretty much dead on. If anything happens to the Big 12 look for the SEC to take Kansas State (bigger state than Oklahoma) and West Virginia.

The SEC would be making a big mistake if it let Texas and Oklahoma, two of the top-ten blue-blood football programs, get away to the PAC or B1G without putting up a serious fight for them. IMO, the only schools out there that merit SEC expansion attention are:

1) Texas
2) UNC
3) Oklahoma
4) Virginia

If none of those will come then the SEC is better off not expanding at all.

Agreed, quo. At this stage in the game, I just don't see any way the SEC takes a state/tech/private school. If Kansas was ever in a position to leave the Big 12, the B1G would be dumb to not let them in. They are a perfect fit for them. If they are dumb enough, I would put Kansas at #5 on your SEC expansion list and WVU as a #6 that would be added only to round out to #16, #18, or #20 if needed.
Kansas might be #1 from the west in the SEC, if available.
05-14-2013 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #224
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
(05-14-2013 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Anyway that's why I don't think that Texas and Oklahoma will move to the SEC even if they had a desire to do so. Slive has no room for a third Texas team and Oklahoma is too small of a state to justify taking two. So the SEC will simply pass on both of them. That makes the remaining prizes Kansas and West Virginia which is what Slive would shoot for. Kansas will go Big 10 at the first opportunity. It's their best fit and it's a good fit for the Big 10 as well. So I think LSUtah's analysis of this is pretty much dead on. If anything happens to the Big 12 look for the SEC to take Kansas State (bigger state than Oklahoma) and West Virginia.

The SEC would be making a big mistake if it let Texas and Oklahoma, two of the top-ten blue-blood football programs, get away to the PAC or B1G without putting up a serious fight for them. IMO, the only schools out there that merit SEC expansion attention are:

1) Texas
2) UNC
3) Oklahoma
4) Virginia

If none of those will come then the SEC is better off not expanding at all.

I hope you would be right here QV but I don't see how we get them without going to 18. At that point we might as well go after West Virginia and one more for 20. I'm not sure the networks or anyone else will want to let us do that (unless it is ESPN).

The way I see it we have 3 national brands in the Big 12 and one strong regional brand (WVU). The SEC needs two to get to 16, The Big 10 needs two to get to 16, and the PAC needs 4 to finish out. The ACC could take two as well. The SEC wants flagship state universities. The Big 10 wants flagship state universities that are AAU. The PAC is more flexible like the SEC but wants what the Big 10 wants. The ACC will take private schools. The breakdown of the Big 12 has 4 schools that meet the SEC's criteria, 3 that meet the criteria of the Big 10, 5 that would meet the usual criteria of the ACC, and 7 that could meet the criteria of the PAC.

If FOX and ESPN cooperate here then each conference that takes teams will have to take a flagship, and one that would be on their margin. Otherwise this deal doesn't get done.

If the networks broker it I would look for the SEC to get at best 1 national brand and West Virginia to get to 16. But in all likelihood the SEC will get 1 new state and West Virginia.

The Big 10's best shot here would be Oklahoma and Kansas (even though OU isn't AAU). But, in all likelihood the Big 10 gets Kansas and settles for Iowa State (unless it decides to pick up UConn).

I don't see ESPN giving up on Texas so I see the Horns headed to the ACC as a hybrid so they can keep the LHN or as a full member if N.D. would join with them (won't happen). This could either happen singulary or with T.C.U. and Baylor going with the Horns to the ACC as full members.

In one scenario the PAC gets one national brand in Oklahoma. But they pick up Kansas State, Texas Tech, and possibly Iowa State if the Big 10 goes for UConn, or T.C.U. if they don't. That gives them DFW and West Texas, a national brand and 3 central time zone states to expand their content via time slot. If Oklahoma insists upon Oklahoma State coming along then I think the SEC would take Kansas State to pick up the larger of the remaining states on the table. There is a lot of negotiating room in any direction here except with the Big 10.

It's possible too that ESPN brings Texas to the ACC so that they can morph the LHN into an ACC network and add Texas to the ACC market footprint for the new network. If they do this then look for Texas to bring along either Baylor or T.C.U..

And these aren't the only possibilities either. But all I'll discuss right now.

So my point is that I just don't see the conference pressures, or network pressures allowing any 1 conference to cherry pick two national brands from the Big 12 without taking some of the others. Therefore 1 national brand or regional brand is the best that any of the remaining conferences could hope for if homes for all ten Big 12 schools are negotiated. Since the elimination of the 5th conference ups everyone's share of playoff revenue there is incentive to be accommodating.

And then again, the Big 12 could add two more cement itself and then if we want sixteen teams we start looking at our periphery for suitable candidates. Then as Vandiver and other have pointed out teams like Cincinnati, East Carolina, Southern Methodist, and South Florida are examined for their upside and their actual and potential market value.

The Big Ten would rather fight this plan than take Iowa State. Settle for Iowa State? Highly doubtful.
05-14-2013 09:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #225
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
(05-14-2013 09:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 07:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Anyway that's why I don't think that Texas and Oklahoma will move to the SEC even if they had a desire to do so. Slive has no room for a third Texas team and Oklahoma is too small of a state to justify taking two. So the SEC will simply pass on both of them. That makes the remaining prizes Kansas and West Virginia which is what Slive would shoot for. Kansas will go Big 10 at the first opportunity. It's their best fit and it's a good fit for the Big 10 as well. So I think LSUtah's analysis of this is pretty much dead on. If anything happens to the Big 12 look for the SEC to take Kansas State (bigger state than Oklahoma) and West Virginia.

The SEC would be making a big mistake if it let Texas and Oklahoma, two of the top-ten blue-blood football programs, get away to the PAC or B1G without putting up a serious fight for them. IMO, the only schools out there that merit SEC expansion attention are:

1) Texas
2) UNC
3) Oklahoma
4) Virginia

If none of those will come then the SEC is better off not expanding at all.

I hope you would be right here QV but I don't see how we get them without going to 18. At that point we might as well go after West Virginia and one more for 20. I'm not sure the networks or anyone else will want to let us do that (unless it is ESPN).

The way I see it we have 3 national brands in the Big 12 and one strong regional brand (WVU). The SEC needs two to get to 16, The Big 10 needs two to get to 16, and the PAC needs 4 to finish out. The ACC could take two as well. The SEC wants flagship state universities. The Big 10 wants flagship state universities that are AAU. The PAC is more flexible like the SEC but wants what the Big 10 wants. The ACC will take private schools. The breakdown of the Big 12 has 4 schools that meet the SEC's criteria, 3 that meet the criteria of the Big 10, 5 that would meet the usual criteria of the ACC, and 7 that could meet the criteria of the PAC.

If FOX and ESPN cooperate here then each conference that takes teams will have to take a flagship, and one that would be on their margin. Otherwise this deal doesn't get done.

If the networks broker it I would look for the SEC to get at best 1 national brand and West Virginia to get to 16. But in all likelihood the SEC will get 1 new state and West Virginia.

The Big 10's best shot here would be Oklahoma and Kansas (even though OU isn't AAU). But, in all likelihood the Big 10 gets Kansas and settles for Iowa State (unless it decides to pick up UConn).

I don't see ESPN giving up on Texas so I see the Horns headed to the ACC as a hybrid so they can keep the LHN or as a full member if N.D. would join with them (won't happen). This could either happen singulary or with T.C.U. and Baylor going with the Horns to the ACC as full members.

In one scenario the PAC gets one national brand in Oklahoma. But they pick up Kansas State, Texas Tech, and possibly Iowa State if the Big 10 goes for UConn, or T.C.U. if they don't. That gives them DFW and West Texas, a national brand and 3 central time zone states to expand their content via time slot. If Oklahoma insists upon Oklahoma State coming along then I think the SEC would take Kansas State to pick up the larger of the remaining states on the table. There is a lot of negotiating room in any direction here except with the Big 10.

It's possible too that ESPN brings Texas to the ACC so that they can morph the LHN into an ACC network and add Texas to the ACC market footprint for the new network. If they do this then look for Texas to bring along either Baylor or T.C.U..

And these aren't the only possibilities either. But all I'll discuss right now.

So my point is that I just don't see the conference pressures, or network pressures allowing any 1 conference to cherry pick two national brands from the Big 12 without taking some of the others. Therefore 1 national brand or regional brand is the best that any of the remaining conferences could hope for if homes for all ten Big 12 schools are negotiated. Since the elimination of the 5th conference ups everyone's share of playoff revenue there is incentive to be accommodating.

And then again, the Big 12 could add two more cement itself and then if we want sixteen teams we start looking at our periphery for suitable candidates. Then as Vandiver and other have pointed out teams like Cincinnati, East Carolina, Southern Methodist, and South Florida are examined for their upside and their actual and potential market value.

The Big Ten would rather fight this plan than take Iowa State. Settle for Iowa State? Highly doubtful.

Therein lies the issue. Why we couldn't just work the deal between the 4 conferences with the Big 12 to start with. Everyone wants the same 3 or 4 teams and there aren't enough truly marketable products there for 3 let alone 4 major conferences to have value in expansion. That's what shifted the attention to the ACC to start with. Now that the ACC has gotten its act together we are back to the Big 12, only the initial problem still remains. That's why if it gets done everyone is going to have to take less than their ideal, SEC and Big 10 included. If just Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia are taken you can't dissolve the conference and end the GOR so it's no dice. If all 10 find homes it can be done sooner rather than later. If not it will likely take a decade to resolve itself. If they expand then all of this is over. The only expansion left will be with schools that the conferences would not have considered before. Since there would be very few AAU targets left the Big 10 would be stuck at 14. The SEC has a little more latitude but will have a difficult time deciding to add two works in progress to a conference of flagships.

It's as I said. Each remaining conference will really only be able to add 1 of the four brands each and then try to find value in the other schools. Value like a new state, a new market within a state, a new time zone, or the chosen partner of 1 of the 4 brands. I'm afraid that's as good as it gets at this point. If that's not good enough then we are done for a long time. And when it starts up again in a decade or longer there will be casualties among deserving schools and that will be worse for the game than finding a way to divide out to 4. And as long as the possibility exists for any of the P4 that Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas might join then the Cincinnati's, Connecticut's, and South Florida's won't get a good look. And if we stay as we are now then the Big 12 with only 10 will always be considered a possibility for expansion so no one will change and everyone will wait. We will simply stay locked at 14, 14, 14.5, 10, and 12 without the desired structure for internal and external playoffs and with a committee deciding the final four instead of the teams deciding it on the field. At least if the Big 12 expands we know they intend to stay together and then the East Carolina's and S.M.U.'s and other hopefuls can get their facilities up to speed if they are not already, can work on their resume, improve academics if needed, and come on board into new homes with a fuller initial impact and much better prospects for success in the new upper tier.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 10:32 PM by JRsec.)
05-14-2013 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #226
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
I am not standing by this scenario but since it is the topic of the discussion I will continue.

To me, the only way it could work is if Kansas and Oklahoma go to the Big Ten. The SEC would then take WVU and OSU. The PAC would take Texas, Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State. The ACC would then have to take Baylor and TCU in order to seal the deal.

The problem with this is the Oklahoma/Texas issue as well as splitting up OU and OSU although if they land B1G/SEC then I really don't think it will be that big of an issue.

What will absolutely be required will be a 13 game season. Oklahoma will want to play both OSU and UT every year which means one of them as a home game and the other as an away game every year. With a 9 game season that would allow them that and two other games to insure that even during a 4 home game conference schedule that they could work out 3 OOC home games. With 10 conference games a year and 13 overall you get 5 home conference games and somehow have to work out 2 out of 3 OOC games being home games for that 7 home games.

It absolutely would not work with 12 games total. Even with 13 it would mean like once every 4 or 5 years they probably only have 6 home games.
05-14-2013 10:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,914
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #227
RE: SEC Network is a disaster for the SEC
(05-14-2013 10:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am not standing by this scenario but since it is the topic of the discussion I will continue.

To me, the only way it could work is if Kansas and Oklahoma go to the Big Ten. The SEC would then take WVU and OSU. The PAC would take Texas, Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State. The ACC would then have to take Baylor and TCU in order to seal the deal.

The problem with this is the Oklahoma/Texas issue as well as splitting up OU and OSU although if they land B1G/SEC then I really don't think it will be that big of an issue.

What will absolutely be required will be a 13 game season. Oklahoma will want to play both OSU and UT every year which means one of them as a home game and the other as an away game every year. With a 9 game season that would allow them that and two other games to insure that even during a 4 home game conference schedule that they could work out 3 OOC home games. With 10 conference games a year and 13 overall you get 5 home conference games and somehow have to work out 2 out of 3 OOC games being home games for that 7 home games.

It absolutely would not work with 12 games total. Even with 13 it would mean like once every 4 or 5 years they probably only have 6 home games.

I totally agree that this scenario could work.....except I fear ESPN's hooks won't let the Horns go West and that would be a deal killer. I think ESPN and the other conferences could do something for the ACC to make taking Baylor and T.C.U. a good thing. The markets for the ACCN and the promise of some good cross conference games for both Baylor and T.C.U. that would make their market values for prime time increase at least twice each a year.

The 13 games would not be as needed as you might think. If each conference plays 9 games in house and 1 each with each of the other three conferences then Oklahoma could spend their SEC game against the Cowboys and their PAC game against the Longhorns. Kansas could spend their SEC game against Mizzou if they wished and the PAC game against KState. West Virginia could spend their ACC game against Pitt and Pitt could spend its B1G game against Penn State.

That's why I've been harping about structure. The structure solves most of the problems if the division of the teams are utilized properly. The Longhorns for instance would spend their B1G game against Oklahoma, their SEC game against A&M, and their ACC games could rotate between T.C.U., Baylor, and N.D. when available. They would have Texas Tech with them so they could still play 3 Texas schools and the Sooners every year and they would still have Kansas State and Iowa State in the PAC. That's how these teams can play more than half of there games close by and still play traditional PAC teams. The actual problems happen when they move together. Then is when it becomes difficult to schedule your traditional foes.

By the way everyone will play a 6 - 6 schedule until they add a 13th which I think is a while off.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 11:02 PM by JRsec.)
05-14-2013 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 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.