(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You're kidding, right?

Texas is the #2 most valuable football program and Oklahoma is #3. Either would be a significant boost to the value of even the SEC.

The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them. The SEC teams that are already valuable don't get to play more games for TV when you add more teams to the conference. CBS is paying way too little for its contract given current values, but they were right to argue that their same number of games didn't become more valuable when the SEC added more teams.

You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Then Wedge there is the value that the programs yield extraneous to TV. It's massive between those 4 schools there is a regional licensing right base of nearly 3 billion. Then there is the SECN in Mexico. Texas games add viewers to those 22 stations that carry the product South of the border.

In business there is instant profit to be considered and then there is the synergy between two strong product lines that multiplies that value.

You're off base on this. Furthermore the baseball and basketball add as well as does women's softball which is a revenue sport at various schools in the SEC and Big 12.

Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

Didn't the Big East get like 11 bids in 2011, and won the national title (on the court) in 2011 and 2013?

Seems like that Big East was doing very, very well before the split.

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 10:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The SEC's existing TV value is already astronomical. OU doesn't add enough to the SEC's existing value to justify adding a tag along with them. The SEC teams that are already valuable don't get to play more games for TV when you add more teams to the conference. CBS is paying way too little for its contract given current values, but they were right to argue that their same number of games didn't become more valuable when the SEC added more teams.

You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Then Wedge there is the value that the programs yield extraneous to TV. It's massive between those 4 schools there is a regional licensing right base of nearly 3 billion. Then there is the SECN in Mexico. Texas games add viewers to those 22 stations that carry the product South of the border.

In business there is instant profit to be considered and then there is the synergy between two strong product lines that multiplies that value.

You're off base on this. Furthermore the baseball and basketball add as well as does women's softball which is a revenue sport at various schools in the SEC and Big 12.

Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Then Wedge there is the value that the programs yield extraneous to TV. It's massive between those 4 schools there is a regional licensing right base of nearly 3 billion. Then there is the SECN in Mexico. Texas games add viewers to those 22 stations that carry the product South of the border.

In business there is instant profit to be considered and then there is the synergy between two strong product lines that multiplies that value.

You're off base on this. Furthermore the baseball and basketball add as well as does women's softball which is a revenue sport at various schools in the SEC and Big 12.

Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

If they added 2 teams, that'd be 4 more conference games and 8 OOC games max(normally 6 of those being dog ones).

There wouldn't be enough meat on that bone(would be roughly the current what 18-19 games plus then 4 more tier 1 games). So maybe 24 games. Can't see them splitting that at all....

(01-17-2019 01:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

If they added 2 teams, that'd be 4 more conference games and 8 OOC games max(normally 6 of those being dog ones).

There wouldn't be enough meat on that bone(would be roughly the current what 18-19 games plus then 4 more tier 1 games). So maybe 24 games. Can't see them splitting that at all....

Stay up to speed. We were talking about the viability of adding the Texa-homa 4. With Texas and Oklahoma anchoring a West that included Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the two Mississippi schools to go along with TTU and OSU and with the East headed by Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida there would be way more than enough content games in each division to easily pull it off.

The problem with statisticians is that they always think inside the box while looking backwards to what has happened, where as marketing thinks outside of it while looking forward. So we are talking 9 conference games (8 divisional and 1 cross divisional, which also enhances the probability for not having a do over in the CCG) for 18 schools or 162 conference games vs 112 conference games presently. OOC P5 would probably be 1 per school so 18 games (which is roughly what is available now). That reduces the number of G5 and FCS games to 36 from 42.

So the SEC with that set up would have 50 more conference games to sell over their current contract. That's plenty with which to fill out two T1 contracts split by division. What's more is that over 13 weeks that increases the quantity of conference games available to T2 an T3 by 24 and does so by reducing the skunky games by 6.

It's a win win for the conference and networks involved.

(01-17-2019 01:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Actually if I'm not mistaken, all content not going to CBS will revert by contract to ESPN. Now ESPN may get them some more money, but that extra content would not go up for bid. Unless the deal with ESPN wasn't for the remainder of the games, but rather x number of games.

Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

If they added 2 teams, that'd be 4 more conference games and 8 OOC games max(normally 6 of those being dog ones).

There wouldn't be enough meat on that bone(would be roughly the current what 18-19 games plus then 4 more tier 1 games). So maybe 24 games. Can't see them splitting that at all....

If we add 2 schools, and it could be more, then that's 16 additional games if we're playing 8 conference games.

14 schools X 8 games = 112
16 schools X 8 games = 128

Depends on how the contract is written, but the 1st Tier will be a lot stronger if certain programs are in the fold. After all, 1st Tier basically just means first pick...

That's also assuming we don't add a 9th conference game and that would be brand new content open for bid as well.

More content for basketball as well and that's particularly relevant if we end up with a school like Kansas.

I don't know if we'd split the 1st Tier or not, but it's an interesting concept.

(01-17-2019 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

If they added 2 teams, that'd be 4 more conference games and 8 OOC games max(normally 6 of those being dog ones).

There wouldn't be enough meat on that bone(would be roughly the current what 18-19 games plus then 4 more tier 1 games). So maybe 24 games. Can't see them splitting that at all....

Stay up to speed. We were talking about the viability of adding the Texa-homa 4. With Texas and Oklahoma anchoring a West that included Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the two Mississippi schools to go along with TTU and OSU and with the East headed by Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida there would be way more than enough content games in each division to easily pull it off.

The problem with statisticians is that they always think inside the box while looking backwards to what has happened, where as marketing thinks outside of it while looking forward. So we are talking 9 conference games (8 divisional and 1 cross divisional, which also enhances the probability for not having a do over in the CCG) for 18 schools or 162 conference games vs 112 conference games presently. OOC P5 would probably be 1 per school so 18 games (which is roughly what is available now). That reduces the number of G5 and FCS games to 36 from 42.

So the SEC with that set up would have 50 more conference games to sell over their current contract. That's plenty with which to fill out two T1 contracts split by division. What's more is that over 13 weeks that increases the quantity of conference games available to T2 an T3 by 24 and does so by reducing the skunky games by 6.

It's a win win for the conference and networks involved.

I've always thought increased content tends to equal better payouts so if we can add 50 games then I don't see a reason not to do it.

Whether it's Texas Tech and Oklahoma State or some other combo then I can get behind that. Ideally, I think each new member should add a decent football product as well as a decent basketball product. I've got a feeling the basketball seasons are going to get more valuable in the not too distant future.

(01-17-2019 02:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

If they added 2 teams, that'd be 4 more conference games and 8 OOC games max(normally 6 of those being dog ones).

There wouldn't be enough meat on that bone(would be roughly the current what 18-19 games plus then 4 more tier 1 games). So maybe 24 games. Can't see them splitting that at all....

Stay up to speed. We were talking about the viability of adding the Texa-homa 4. With Texas and Oklahoma anchoring a West that included Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the two Mississippi schools to go along with TTU and OSU and with the East headed by Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida there would be way more than enough content games in each division to easily pull it off.

The problem with statisticians is that they always think inside the box while looking backwards to what has happened, where as marketing thinks outside of it while looking forward. So we are talking 9 conference games (8 divisional and 1 cross divisional, which also enhances the probability for not having a do over in the CCG) for 18 schools or 162 conference games vs 112 conference games presently. OOC P5 would probably be 1 per school so 18 games (which is roughly what is available now). That reduces the number of G5 and FCS games to 36 from 42.

So the SEC with that set up would have 50 more conference games to sell over their current contract. That's plenty with which to fill out two T1 contracts split by division. What's more is that over 13 weeks that increases the quantity of conference games available to T2 an T3 by 24 and does so by reducing the skunky games by 6.

It's a win win for the conference and networks involved.

I've always thought increased content tends to equal better payouts so if we can add 50 games then I don't see a reason not to do it.

Whether it's Texas Tech and Oklahoma State or some other combo then I can get behind that. Ideally, I think each new member should add a decent football product as well as a decent basketball product. I've got a feeling the basketball seasons are going to get more valuable in the not too distant future.

Conservatively, with that kind of content multiplication 60 million a year per school would not be out of the question, and 70 million would not be impossible.

Quite literally you are adding 40% of the value of the present Big 12, and really more than that since you are adding the two most significant products. Then you factor in how much more interest there would be in those 4 versus a stronger schedule in the new West. Those four schools against a smaller market and less branding are worth 14 million over and above the present SEC value on face value without calculating the value multipliers. And the T2 content with regional games in the Texas/Oklahoma area is strong with the added interest in Arkansas and L.S.U. which also have followings in that region.

(01-17-2019 02:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Adding content and product is why contracts have renegotiation clauses. The SEC's T2 and T3 contracts are up in 2034. By the time they land the contract to replace the T1 that timeline is only a decade away. No company will want to lose the most lucrative product in the industry due to short term thinking. So Stever, I don't think anyone here is worried about that.

Right- have no problem with it being renegotiated. But what it won't be is up for open bidding like I think you think... It won't be like what the Big Ten was 2 years ago.

The T1 will be. It expires in 2023-4. Who's to say the SEC won't split their T1 rights, especially if they add content to the West. While it's not been done before the East division could be sold to one carrier at one time slot and the West to another at another time slot. As long as it doesn't affect the # of games purchased by ESPN for T2 and T3 and even if it does that can be renegotiated as well.

If they added 2 teams, that'd be 4 more conference games and 8 OOC games max(normally 6 of those being dog ones).

There wouldn't be enough meat on that bone(would be roughly the current what 18-19 games plus then 4 more tier 1 games). So maybe 24 games. Can't see them splitting that at all....

If we add 2 schools, and it could be more, then that's 16 additional games if we're playing 8 conference games.

14 schools X 8 games = 112
16 schools X 8 games = 128

Depends on how the contract is written, but the 1st Tier will be a lot stronger if certain programs are in the fold. After all, 1st Tier basically just means first pick...

That's also assuming we don't add a 9th conference game and that would be brand new content open for bid as well.

More content for basketball as well and that's particularly relevant if we end up with a school like Kansas.

I don't know if we'd split the 1st Tier or not, but it's an interesting concept.

you have to divide your numbers by 2.. You are talking slots.

Also, lets say they go 9 conference games with 18 teams....

would have 81 conference games....

now OOC. typically the 9 teams that only get 4 home games do not play a road game that year, and play all 3 OOC games at home. The 9 teams that get 5 home games will typically play 2 home and 1 road game....

So for that- would get 45 home OOC games. Of these 45, 9 are normally going to be P5 type games.

So would have 81+45 games or 126 games.

Right now with 14 teams...
56 conference games
42 OOC games
98 games

I really think a big question is what does the ESPN/SEC contract state. Does it state that ESPN gets all games outside the tier 1 package, or does it state that ESPN gets all but 20 tier 1 games. That verbage will determine what can be done. If it's the former, then the SEC can sell out 2 packages pretty easily. If it's the latter, There's not much the SEC can do except get a huge raise from ESPN(but not as large as they would have gotten)

(01-17-2019 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

We were with them from the inception of the SEC Bullet! It wasn't bad for us then because it built us into what we are. It would be a clarifying and redefining moment to have our divisions become what was the Old SEC in the East and an enhanced version of the SWC in the West.

You can't look at the future with an old brain. Conferences moving forward will not only be part of the playoff structure, but also part of a rights leveraging platform. If your division was who you always wanted to, or always did, play and the Conference Championship game is essentially the equivalent of the present Sugar Bowl you have lost nothing but the duplicated overhead expenses of two conference offices, and gained leverage, a better core schedule of schools who add value and travel well, and which are more regional to boot.

Well you were with them in the time of 6 game conference schedules. When Georgia hardly ever played Tennessee or Alabama or LSU. When Florida hardly ever played Tennessee or Alabama. There were years when LSU only played 5. They rarely played Auburn. And it was only in the 80s when it even went to 7 games.

(01-17-2019 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

We were with them from the inception of the SEC Bullet! It wasn't bad for us then because it built us into what we are. It would be a clarifying and redefining moment to have our divisions become what was the Old SEC in the East and an enhanced version of the SWC in the West.

You can't look at the future with an old brain. Conferences moving forward will not only be part of the playoff structure, but also part of a rights leveraging platform. If your division was who you always wanted to, or always did, play and the Conference Championship game is essentially the equivalent of the present Sugar Bowl you have lost nothing but the duplicated overhead expenses of two conference offices, and gained leverage, a better core schedule of schools who add value and travel well, and which are more regional to boot.

Conferences of 20+ worked when the situation was favorable. I've been arguing that the circumstances favor large again for some time.

Rivalries is what makes the SEC valuable. Going to 14 meant playing old rivals less. Getting bigger would make it even more of a problem. I can't believe anyone in the SEC East would prefer Missouri to playing more SEC West schools. I can't believe anyone in the B1G East would prefer Rutgers or Maryland to playing more B1G West schools. And other than BC, I can't imagine anyone in the ACC preferring Pitt and Syracuse over the older ACC schools.

(01-17-2019 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

Didn't the Big East get like 11 bids in 2011, and won the national title (on the court) in 2011 and 2013?

Seems like that Big East was doing very, very well before the split.

A few examples from the megaconference 2005-2013 era
DePaul only had one NIT bid from 2005-2013. The last 5 years they have 7 wins combined in conference. Only had one winning record in conference.
Cincinnati prior to BE had 14 straight years in NCAA. Only 3 appearances from 2005-2013. Only 2 years with a winning record in conference.
USF Only 2 years with winning record in conference and one NCAA appearance.
St. John's Only 1 winning record in conference and one NCAA appearance.
Providence Only 1 winning record in conference and no NCAA appearances.
Rutgers 36 conference wins over 8 years-always a losing record. Only an NIT appearance.

4 of those 6 were very strong programs prior to the mega-expansion.

Georgetown did better than I remembered, mainly because they bombed in the tourney. 2005 they got to the regional finals and 2006 they lost in the final 4. After that they made the NCAA all but one year, but only had 2 wins. They beat MD-Baltimore Co. before losing to Davidson. Lost to Baylor 1st round. Lost to Ohio 1st round. Lost to VCU in the 1st round. Beat Belmont before losing to NCSU. Lost to Florida Gulf Coast in the 1st round.

(01-17-2019 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 11:35 AM)bullet Wrote:  There's something to a conference having too many strong football programs. I can't imagine much worse for South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and possibly Tennessee and Auburn as well, than to be in an SEC East with those 5, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. The latter 3 probably do fine, but not necessarily.

The example is Big East basketball before the split. Formerly strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became basket cases. Others like Georgetown and Providence declined. South Florida and Rutgers could never get out of the cellar. Some others became mediocre. Only a few continued to be consistent national contenders.

Didn't the Big East get like 11 bids in 2011, and won the national title (on the court) in 2011 and 2013?

Seems like that Big East was doing very, very well before the split.

A few examples from the megaconference 2005-2013 era
DePaul only had one NIT bid from 2005-2013. The last 5 years they have 7 wins combined in conference. Only had one winning record in conference.
Cincinnati prior to BE had 14 straight years in NCAA. Only 3 appearances from 2005-2013. Only 2 years with a winning record in conference.
USF Only 2 years with winning record in conference and one NCAA appearance.
St. John's Only 1 winning record in conference and one NCAA appearance.
Providence Only 1 winning record in conference and no NCAA appearances.
Rutgers 36 conference wins over 8 years-always a losing record. Only an NIT appearance.

4 of those 6 were very strong programs prior to the mega-expansion.

Georgetown did better than I remembered, mainly because they bombed in the tourney. 2005 they got to the regional finals and 2006 they lost in the final 4. After that they made the NCAA all but one year, but only had 2 wins. They beat MD-Baltimore Co. before losing to Davidson. Lost to Baylor 1st round. Lost to Ohio 1st round. Lost to VCU in the 1st round. Beat Belmont before losing to NCSU. Lost to Florida Gulf Coast in the 1st round.

of those 6-
Cincy- bids in 11,12,13
USF- bid in 12
SJ- bid in 11

I do agree with you on DePaul and Rutgers.

Providence- they weren't exactly stellar in the period prior to going to 16... they had 1 tourney bid last 4 years but 18-30 conference record in those 4 years...

The only 1 of those 6 that was strong before going into the 16 team Big East was Cincy..

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

Cincinnati put its basketball program a self-imposed Death Penalty sentence in the mid 200s. Prior to Firing Bob Huggins in 2005, he wasn't allowed to recruit for a couple years. When Andy Kennedy took over he just had an interim tag and was unable to recruit as well. After the departure of Huggins and Kennedy, all but one scholarship player had their eligibility expire or transferred. Mick Cronin's first team was made of guys from the NAIA ranks and the football team. It took a few years to right the ship, but once we did we were competitive in the best college basketball conference in the country.

(01-17-2019 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

(01-17-2019 12:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  One thing not being talked about here is the fact the university presidents make these decisions, and the head honcho at Texas is not interested in the SEC so I don’t see that changing in the next two years. Oklahoma’s president has talked about the importance of raising their academic profile, and I don’t see the SEC enhancing it in the next two years either. So while either of those universities joining the SEC may create an unstoppable revenue force, the likes we have never seen, it just isn’t attractive to those universities that so happen to field athletic teams.

Also, we saw this past season Georgia being slighted for Oklahoma. Being the second team in a conference hurts, so why would a power program allow their chances to slim? Even without the Big XII, does anybody honestly see three SEC teams getting in? Hell to the no, a one-loss Big Ten, ACC, or Pac team would get in instead. The most any conference can hope for is two reps, so keeping an alive and well Big XII actually allows more parity in the sport.

1. Texas has been in talks with the SEC since 1989.
2. If conferences go divisionless, or should the playoffs expand, nothing substantive has changed in the way of odds. The SEC West would essentially be the SWC enhanced and the SEC East would be the old core SEC. The two champs meeting in the CCG is essentially the old Sugar Bowl and is your quarter final round of the playoffs.
3. It's not about parity dummy, it's about revenue.
4. If the SEC grows, so too will the Big 10 and for the same reasons. Football first schools in the PAC and ACC would have a lot of thinking to do.

1. Whoa folks, hold the phone! Texas has allegedly been in talks with the SEC since 1989! And absolutely nothing has come of it for 30 years!!

It's actually a shame the SEC hasn't improved its academic profile since 1989 to wrangle the Horns.

2. Fair point, and I agree it looks good on paper. BUT that doesn't change the fact Texas has been more seriously interested in the Pac 10/12 over the years. I'm sorry, but until I read actual facts involving Texas and the SEC, that line-up is what SEC fanboys' dreams are made of.

3. Hmm, being called a bad name unprovoked by a big mean old moderator? That's a first; I'll wear that badge with pride.

What is the "it" you speak of? All I said was having a strong Big XII around makes the sport more interesting. If Texas and Oklahoma want to control their own conference (like they do now), or if they want to move, that will be their call. I was just commenting on the fact that I like having five or more power conferences due to the parity, and that goes beyond football.

4. The Big Ten already regrets expansion. Markets are going to be less and less important. What will happen is big-time schools will start producing their own content and begin controlling their own destinies. Bits are cheap and so is student labor. Media departments are growing by leaps and bounds. You heard it here first, folks!

(01-17-2019 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

(01-17-2019 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

(01-17-2019 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 03:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 11:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You are thinking the way contracts were figured last time around. Things have changed. Even if CBS gives us a bigger contract price, it is true they won't be adding but perhaps a few extra weekends when they air 2 games.

The rest of the content can be sold to virtually anyone. Adding games that draw the attention of such a vast market as the 33 million in Texas/Oklahoma has value on its own regionally, and it locks in the highest ad rate for that region.

Doesn't ESPN have the rights to every SEC football game except for the 15 games that CBS now has, on a contract that runs about 15 more years?

ESPN doesn't "have to" pay more for the rights they already own. The SEC doesn't have the leverage with ESPN to just add OU and OkSt and demand $5 or 10 million more per-school-per-year than ESPN is now paying.

Now if the SEC adds both UT and OU and the Big 12 vanishes, then there's an argument that they've captured all of the current Big 12 TV value, and can use the current Big 12 TV windows, and should get both the current SEC money plus the current Big 12 money, and it would be profitable because they only have to divide the money 16 ways instead of 24. (Basically that was the argument when they formed the Big 12; Big 8 TV value plus SWC TV value with more TV money for each Big 12 member because 4 schools got kicked out.)

But that doesn't work if some other conference gets the Horns, and it doesn't work nearly as well if acquiring both UT and OU includes tag alongs. The more tag alongs, the less profitable it becomes. (Again, it's the rationale for the initial Big 12 lineup.)

The point is it still works. I agree the most efficient for everyone is UT and OU and stop. However, there is a T2 upside to adding Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as well. All of those schools games against Texas, A&M, OU, L.S.U., Arkansas and Missouri would be strong draws regionally. And by having them ESPN/SEC have a potential of 3 to 5 regional games per week that would draw the interest of the 33 million in the TX/OK region. That's a nice chunk for a regional draw. If those games drew 3 to 5 million viewers that's still solid.

BTW: This remark is for Stever, but if the Texa-homa crowd get what they want (very regional play) and the SEC profits and UT/AL and Aub/UGA are no longer crossovers, and ESPN profits then anything can be renegotiated. The only time something can't be done is when 1 party doesn't gain from the proposed transaction.

Texas and Oklahoma and their little brothers have been estimated to be 67% of the value for football in the Big 12 when all factors are figured in. Of course Texas and Oklahoma alone are the bulk of that. If Texas gets an annual schedule of Texas A&M, Arkansas, L.S.U., Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Ole Miss and Miss State and the farthest their fans have to travel is Oxford every other year or Columbia every other year, they'll be happy. If OU can keep UT and OSU and have more regionally oriented games they'll be happy.

If it's a win / win / win it can be done.

Even the LHN is easily converted into a studio for the West while Charlotte manages the East.

Like I've said, it's all going to hinge on what the current ESPN contract says. If it says they get all except for 20 games, it's going to take a lot to get anything more than 20 games.....

I just don't think we can blindly say that the SEC would have the ability to put out a package of 30-40+ games or 2 seperate ones of 15-20 games without knowing what the contract says currently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the SEC schools themselves would want what you are saying.... That's not a conference, that's more of a professional league. 2 games vs everyone in 16 years?

No it's more like two conferences. The old SEC and an enhanced SWC. Most of the schools only care about playing their old rivals more often.

But the issue here Stever is that you aren't listening. What the current contract says is meaningless if all 3 parties (the new schools, the SEC, and ESPN) agree to new terms. Contracts can be written, rewritten, amended, etc., as long as all parties are in agreement.

So if the wording specifies a # of games to T2 & T3 the SEC doesn't have to worry about splitting the T1 with the extra inventory games. If all games belong to ESPN that are not specified as T1 then the only thing that matters is if the arrangement pleases all parties involved. And what that means is do they all profit. Whether or not all parties profit Stever is the only limitation placed on any contract.

If the current contract though defines tier 1 as being 20 games, with ESPN getting everything else, that's going to change the leverage in this considerably..... ESPN would have the right in renegotiations to keep their current setup.... Which then would not put anything more into the open market.... There is nothing the SEC could do to force it to the open market.

If the current contract says ESPN gets everything but Tier 1, it's a whole different ball game.....

We have no idea on how the current contract reads.