Started By
Message
The Next Conference Expansion: Mizzou Perspective.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 7/11/15 at 12:58 pm
I've been grazing the Land Thieves realignment thread on and off for a week or so and thought I'd start a thread away from tRant to try to keep it more focused.
So with the specific idea of whether it's in the best interest of the SEC to add Oklahoma, here are a few questions I'd like kicked around. Add your own too and I'll add them to the OP.
These questions could also apply to Texas, but it's almost a non-starter on several levels. Anyway...
1. How important is increasing the footprint vs. securing name brands in adding 15 & 16?
2. How much do individual game ratings increase revenue vs. $1.40 in-state per month SECN rate?
3. How much would the SEC be hurt by OU and Texas joining the PAC, B1G or ACC? Could the league actually be rivaled as the perceived heavyweight of CFB?
4. If an NC and VA school are impossible to pry loose from the ACC, would it be a sage move to proactively open (or continue) discussions to try to pry OU loose from the XII?
5. I personally think Texas A&M winning big in the West and becoming another SEC nameplate is critical in marginalizing OU and UT and keeping them out of the SEC. Or perhaps more accurately, someone needs to crack the Big 6 to lessen any perceived need to add one from the outside. Agree? Disagree?
Note: I think adding OU would be bad for Missouri - blunting our chances to become a long-term, high end football brand based on them potentially undercutting our momentum. Texas A&M, Baylor and the Texas lil' brothers are clearly eroding their ability to recruit Texas and I'd like to keep it that way. Thus my personal preference is for OU to be anywhere but the SEC.
And it's clear from reading the LT thread, they're still a bunch of arrogant frick's who have learned little from their destructive alliance with Texas. Nonetheless, a Missouri view may not be the prevailing SEC view when the time comes to add 15 & 16.
5
Posted on 7/11/15 at 1:18 pm to Mizz-SEC
Im not as sure as i used to be that 15 & 16 expansion is inevitable. I think things have a chance to lay where they are if the right situations dont arise.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 2:41 pm to Mizz-SEC
Some thoughts:
1. Both are important since we don't know which will be more important in the future. I would rather see the SEC focus on getting good schools rather than just worry about football. Academic money dwarfs athletic money. The athletic footprint of the SEC looks good for the future, would like to see an increase in academic prestige.
2. Revenue is set by contracts and advertising sold prior to the game so an individual rating has no impact. Having a high demand product though helps increase revenue when contracts are renegotiated and future advertising.
3. Conference strength will always be a moving target. I think conferences can only support 2 heavyweight teams at a time. The 2 will change during a time frame, but some schools are more likely to stay in the discussion. Schools that are not considered the top 2 will be considered "down". OU and Texas will help any conference perception they join, but the conference perceptions will rise and fall.
4. I don't see any reason to heavily pursue OU.
5. I agree A&M can help keep UT and OU down but I don't think they need to be dominating the SECW. Just be competitive enough to keep the SEC in the news in Texas. Either of those schools would make our recruiting harder in Texas if they join the SEC. They mostly take who they want before us anyway, but right now being SEC is a positive we have over them.
Overall I don't see the need to expand just to expand. I could see ESPN trying to move some schools around in conferences to maximize their money. For instance I think ESPN could be pushing for a school like NC State to join the SEC because they have that state covered with 3 schools in the ACC. Moving one of those schools to the SEC helps ESPN's other contracts.
1. Both are important since we don't know which will be more important in the future. I would rather see the SEC focus on getting good schools rather than just worry about football. Academic money dwarfs athletic money. The athletic footprint of the SEC looks good for the future, would like to see an increase in academic prestige.
2. Revenue is set by contracts and advertising sold prior to the game so an individual rating has no impact. Having a high demand product though helps increase revenue when contracts are renegotiated and future advertising.
3. Conference strength will always be a moving target. I think conferences can only support 2 heavyweight teams at a time. The 2 will change during a time frame, but some schools are more likely to stay in the discussion. Schools that are not considered the top 2 will be considered "down". OU and Texas will help any conference perception they join, but the conference perceptions will rise and fall.
4. I don't see any reason to heavily pursue OU.
5. I agree A&M can help keep UT and OU down but I don't think they need to be dominating the SECW. Just be competitive enough to keep the SEC in the news in Texas. Either of those schools would make our recruiting harder in Texas if they join the SEC. They mostly take who they want before us anyway, but right now being SEC is a positive we have over them.
Overall I don't see the need to expand just to expand. I could see ESPN trying to move some schools around in conferences to maximize their money. For instance I think ESPN could be pushing for a school like NC State to join the SEC because they have that state covered with 3 schools in the ACC. Moving one of those schools to the SEC helps ESPN's other contracts.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 3:30 pm to Mizz-SEC
Stay at 14. UNC and UVA are the only two schools worth adding and they aren't leaving the ACC.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 4:00 pm to Tigersessed
quote:
Overall I don't see the need to expand just to expand. I could see ESPN trying to move some schools around in conferences to maximize their money. For instance I think ESPN could be pushing for a school like NC State to join the SEC because they have that state covered with 3 schools in the ACC. Moving one of those schools to the SEC helps ESPN's other contracts.
ESPN was recently given a directive by Disney to get their costs down significantly. I don't see ESPN paying additional money by adding inventory of games to conferences in which they have a huge monetary interest unless they find that the LHN is something that should be on the block and that the LHN expense can be shed and provide a net cut to the ESPN even while paying additional money to the SEC for OU or whoever else's inventory on SEC contracts.
Getting texas to the Pac 12 likely eliminates the LHN and moves that expense off their books and to the Pac 12. Does it make enough of a difference to do it and pay extra for their other inventory and is it such a small amount in the grand scheme of things that it's worth doing? Those are the questions.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 5:06 pm to Mizzeaux
State of Oklahoma Regents won't allow OU to move without OSU. Same with Texas being tied with TT. No way you take OU with OSU and gain the Oklahoma market for the SECN. Just not enough there to justify it.
No way they take Texas, for the same reason. The TT package adds nothing. Plus that's a big FU to A&M. A&M just left to get from under their shadow. And they won't give up the LHN to join the SEC.
SEC stays at 14, because there is no market that brings in the revenue.
No way they take Texas, for the same reason. The TT package adds nothing. Plus that's a big FU to A&M. A&M just left to get from under their shadow. And they won't give up the LHN to join the SEC.
SEC stays at 14, because there is no market that brings in the revenue.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 5:17 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
ESPN was recently given a directive by Disney to get their costs down significantly.
The numbers sound big, but I wouldn't call them significant. Pretty sure ESPN expenses are several billions per year. The numbers being thrown around are a small percentage and pretty standard for large companies going through a cost cutting initiative.
quote:
I don't see ESPN paying additional money by adding inventory of games to conferences
That model died when we went to the SEC network. We now share profits rather than ESPN just paying a certain amount every year for conference games.
I agree that *ESPN* probably wants to get rid of the LHN, but those expenses are inconsequential to ESPN. I would think they would rather UT go to the ACC though since ESPN has a part of that. That allows ESPN to double dip into the TX market from 2 conferences. Increasing revenue is just as good as cutting costs.
*Edit: noticed a typo so changed SEC to ESPN. probably makes more sense haha
This post was edited on 7/11/15 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 7/11/15 at 7:31 pm to surgicalvenom
quote:
No way you take OU with OSU and gain the Oklahoma market for the SECN. Just not enough there to justify it.
I've been trying to beat that into their tiny little crimson and cream brains for last week, so much I've almost been banned over at LandThieves. The gooner fans think a lot of themselves LOL. It makes utterly no sense to take OU if it means we have to take a worthless asset like OSU, TCU or Baylor at #16, it would be a net loss for the SEC.
But if they can pry loose of the Pukes, and the SEC could score a valuable #16 then I'd like the move. KU would actually be my first choice--two more border states and two more name brands. Maybe basketball won't be so worthless in the coming switch from cable/sat to streaming? Texas, FSU, or a NC or VA team all would make a good #16 for the SEC IMO.
But OTOH, I'm fine staying at 14 too. I don't think the SEC needs OU or should in anyway bend to get them. If they go to the Pac or B1G or stay in the Bevo, then that's fine too and will have no bad effect on Mizzou.
If OU did come to the SEC, I don't think it would hurt Mizzou. This isn't the Switzer OU program, and we're not the Babs Uehling Mizzou program that couldn't compete. Since 2007 and moving forward there's no reason we couldn't be and stay competitive with them. They'd just be another Tennessee type program with a smaller stadium than the Vols, they'd have their ups and downs just like the rest in the SEC.
Posted on 7/11/15 at 10:55 pm to RocketBallz
As your drunken next door neighbor I'll chime in.
UVA and possibly UNC would be solid adds to the SEC. We also won't get either of them any time soon. Right now our footprint is solid, the income is good, and the conference is doing well in a variety of sports.
Adding the Aggies and Missouri has made the SEC about as big as it needs to be right now. I for one don't want to throw a lifeline to Texas to bail them out of their trouble and Oklahoma adds nothing to the conference that we don't have in spades.
The SEC hit the jackpot with the Aggies and Mizzou. I am in favor of holding pat at the moment and counting our money.
UVA and possibly UNC would be solid adds to the SEC. We also won't get either of them any time soon. Right now our footprint is solid, the income is good, and the conference is doing well in a variety of sports.
Adding the Aggies and Missouri has made the SEC about as big as it needs to be right now. I for one don't want to throw a lifeline to Texas to bail them out of their trouble and Oklahoma adds nothing to the conference that we don't have in spades.
The SEC hit the jackpot with the Aggies and Mizzou. I am in favor of holding pat at the moment and counting our money.
Posted on 7/12/15 at 8:22 am to Tigersessed
quote:
Some thoughts:
1. Both are important since we don't know which will be more important in the future. I would rather see the SEC focus on getting good schools rather than just worry about football. Academic money dwarfs athletic money. The athletic footprint of the SEC looks good for the future, would like to see an increase in academic prestige.
2. Revenue is set by contracts and advertising sold prior to the game so an individual rating has no impact. Having a high demand product though helps increase revenue when contracts are renegotiated and future advertising.
3. Conference strength will always be a moving target. I think conferences can only support 2 heavyweight teams at a time. The 2 will change during a time frame, but some schools are more likely to stay in the discussion. Schools that are not considered the top 2 will be considered "down". OU and Texas will help any conference perception they join, but the conference perceptions will rise and fall.
4. I don't see any reason to heavily pursue OU.
5. I agree A&M can help keep UT and OU down but I don't think they need to be dominating the SECW. Just be competitive enough to keep the SEC in the news in Texas. Either of those schools would make our recruiting harder in Texas if they join the SEC. They mostly take who they want before us anyway, but right now being SEC is a positive we have over them.
Overall I don't see the need to expand just to expand. I could see ESPN trying to move some schools around in conferences to maximize their money. For instance I think ESPN could be pushing for a school like NC State to join the SEC because they have that state covered with 3 schools in the ACC. Moving one of those schools to the SEC helps ESPN's other contracts.
Outstanding post. Thank you.
Posted on 7/12/15 at 8:35 am to Arksulli
quote:
The SEC hit the jackpot with the Aggies and Mizzou. I am in favor of holding pat at the moment and counting our money.
I agree with you, the status quo would be great. But what if the SEC's hand is forced?
I didn't realize the depth of the dissatisfaction within the OU fan base with the state of the XII. They want out and don't really care where the prevailing winds carry their parachutes. A few even realize it was a trap of their own making not standing up to Texas in 2010.
Anyway, in the past the SEC made their moves when others moved first. This time the quality adds will be at a premium. So if XII dissolution becomes inevitable, would it be a mistake for the SEC to not be proactive?
I could see a lot of support for an OU - NC State type of addition if the time comes.
Would this be good, bad or neutral for Missouri moving forward?
Posted on 7/12/15 at 3:03 pm to Mizz-SEC
quote:
Would this be good, bad or neutral for Missouri moving forward?
If we took OU and possibly NC State... it would still be a plus for Mizzou. The SEC would change to a 9 conference game format, and might very well do away with permanent rivals. Mizzou might find itself in the West, but that might not be a bad thing. Playing LSU, Arkansas, A&M, and Oklahoma would mean that the Tigers get more big games in the Southwest then a lot of Texas teams do now.
It would also be a plus for Arkansas to be honest, if we had to break down and do it. Again, much like Missouri we would have a ton of games right in our backyard to recruit the state of Texas.
It could work. But right now the SEC is riding tall in the saddle and we don't really need to do it.
Could Oklahoma and Oklahoma lite panic and go all in for joining the SEC? Well if you were still stuck in the Big 12 wouldn't you? If that happens and the Alabama teams shift to the East, then you'd have a hybrid Big 8/SWC mix that could generate a lot of noise.
Posted on 7/12/15 at 3:45 pm to Arksulli
Let's say OU and OU lite come begging to move to the SEC. That's 2 more teams to share revenue with vs. how much their market can generate for the SECN. No way the SECN pays upward to $45 - $60 million more per year to the SEC for the Oklahoma market. And that's what they would have to pay to keep the other 14 SEC schools at their current revenues.
Adding Mizzou was a master move by Slive, because it is the only major in-state school with 2 midsize city markets. Easily able to justify to the SECN.
I do agree with the earlier poster who said maybe focus on an high academic schools for research money. But are you going to convince athletic departments to take less so the schools can get more research money? And who would they be, maybe Miami and Duke?
Adding Mizzou was a master move by Slive, because it is the only major in-state school with 2 midsize city markets. Easily able to justify to the SECN.
I do agree with the earlier poster who said maybe focus on an high academic schools for research money. But are you going to convince athletic departments to take less so the schools can get more research money? And who would they be, maybe Miami and Duke?
Posted on 7/12/15 at 6:49 pm to surgicalvenom
quote:
But are you going to convince athletic departments to take less so the schools can get more research money?
I think technically the ADs are not the ones voting. The people in charge of approving are responsible for both research and athletics. I could see schools agreeing to take $2M a year less in sports if they are making $30M more in research. AAU status has been talked about during realignment but not because it helps the sport teams. This is just my opinion.
quote:
And who would they be, maybe Miami and Duke?
UVA and UNC are my dream schools. I would be fine with a VT and Duke though. I would even like a Wake Forest. Schools that are considered crap now in sports have the potential to be solid down the road. 40 years ago Minnesota would have had more appeal than Florida if looking at football only. I think USCjr vs Clemson 20 years ago is a good case study. Nobody would have picked USC over Clemson for expansion back then, but today they are a lot closer.
Posted on 7/12/15 at 7:23 pm to Mizz-SEC
I'd like to see us expand to 16, just for scheduling purposes. Going to a 4 team pod system is a better scheduling option than the current model.
As for who to expand with... frick no to OU. It gains the conference almost nothing, and probably hurts Mizzou in the long run. We need to either go east or stand pat.
I could see ESPN facilitating a move where by the SEC gets VT & NCST, and the ACC gets TU, TT, OU, and KU (or OSU). This move is a win-win for both conferences. It gives the SEC their desired footprint, and shores up the ACC. This move also boxes Fox Sports in by keeping the ACC intact; making the B1G go after 2nd tier teams, and keeps the PAC-12 in the west.
As for who to expand with... frick no to OU. It gains the conference almost nothing, and probably hurts Mizzou in the long run. We need to either go east or stand pat.
I could see ESPN facilitating a move where by the SEC gets VT & NCST, and the ACC gets TU, TT, OU, and KU (or OSU). This move is a win-win for both conferences. It gives the SEC their desired footprint, and shores up the ACC. This move also boxes Fox Sports in by keeping the ACC intact; making the B1G go after 2nd tier teams, and keeps the PAC-12 in the west.
Posted on 7/13/15 at 8:33 am to Mizz-SEC
quote:
1. How important is increasing the footprint vs. securing name brands in adding 15 & 16?
I think this is dependent upon the Big 12 when they come close to their GOR expires. I see a lot of schools getting trigger happy and wanting to jump. Once we see once conference go to 16, I think it will be an arms race for all the major conferences.
quote:
2. How much do individual game ratings increase revenue vs. $1.40 in-state per month SECN rate?
Well, I'm not sure how ratings translates to money, but I know the SECN has struggled with ratings the past few months. Launching for football gave great viewer numbers from "newness"...but that is slowing down, almost to a standstill nowadays. They simply don't have any quality programming. Classic game replays and Paul finebaum for 4 hours a day isn't going to get it done.
quote:
3. How much would the SEC be hurt by OU and Texas joining the PAC, B1G or ACC? Could the league actually be rivaled as the perceived heavyweight of CFB?
A bit, because it would be a noticeable boost to the PAC or ACC. B1G is already strong, but it would give them an in to Texas and everything they provide (money, recruits, TV's)
quote:
4. If an NC and VA school are impossible to pry loose from the ACC, would it be a sage move to proactively open (or continue) discussions to try to pry OU loose from the XII?
Considering it is the most likely scenario as of now, seems like the smart move. ESPN will make sure the ACC stays intact. They will not risk losing the conference to get the SEC a few more bucks. I see a panic from Big12 teams fearing getting left out, so I think it will be more the other way rather than conferences reaching out. It will be schools reaching out to conferences.
quote:
5. I personally think Texas A&M winning big in the West and becoming another SEC nameplate is critical in marginalizing OU and UT and keeping them out of the SEC. Or perhaps more accurately, someone needs to crack the Big 6 to lessen any perceived need to add one from the outside. Agree? Disagree?
There are plenty already..what is one more?
quote:
And it's clear from reading the LT thread, they're still a bunch of arrogant frick's who have learned little from their destructive alliance with Texas. Nonetheless, a Missouri view may not be the prevailing SEC view when the time comes to add 15 & 16.
If it comes to a Big12 raid (IMO, the most likely scenario), I think we play a big part in determine which teams get picked.
Posted on 7/13/15 at 9:41 am to 5thTiger
Let's put things into perspective.
NC/VA schools are what SEC wants most
OU is a distant 3rd in SEC wishlist
There is no pressure for SEC to expand. SEC is where the others want to be.
It's my opinion, it's Boren sending out the feelers, not SEC initiated. If we're meeting with them, it's a Jesus talk discussion: You're a 3-star recruit, not a 5-star recruit.
The only reasons, IMO, to take OU (and of course w/o Lite.)
1. A grand plan to move us to P4 and dissolve B12
2. Belief that this could cause some schools to dislodge from ACC
3. Maybe 16 isn't the end all realignment number.
NC/VA schools are what SEC wants most
OU is a distant 3rd in SEC wishlist
There is no pressure for SEC to expand. SEC is where the others want to be.
It's my opinion, it's Boren sending out the feelers, not SEC initiated. If we're meeting with them, it's a Jesus talk discussion: You're a 3-star recruit, not a 5-star recruit.
The only reasons, IMO, to take OU (and of course w/o Lite.)
1. A grand plan to move us to P4 and dissolve B12
2. Belief that this could cause some schools to dislodge from ACC
3. Maybe 16 isn't the end all realignment number.
This post was edited on 7/13/15 at 9:50 am
Posted on 7/13/15 at 10:03 am to RocketBallz
quote:
I've been trying to beat that into their tiny little crimson and cream brains for last week
Rocket, I've been reading your stuff over there.
I love the guy that thinks OU would rule the SEC West. They are so use to being a big dog, but in realignment, they are really a dance partner, not the big dog. They won't admit it.
I'd like kU to come in, but that's not going to happen. Even if an offer was made, not sure the free-soilers would take it.
Also got to say, dislodging ACC teams will be very difficult, if not impossible.
VT looks like the easiest target, but they are not showing SEC interest. UNC is the big dog. That's not going to happen unless the ACC implodes. IMO UVA might prefer to be in B1G if they move. And I see UNC having enough power in the Board of Governors to block NCST from moving.
Posted on 7/13/15 at 10:08 am to Stlox
quote:
The only reasons, IMO, to take OU (and of course w/o Lite.)
For the SEC to even consider okie lite, it means that the 20-team super conferences are now. And in my opinion, it is the same with ou.
The state of Oklahoma brings little to the table and should not even rate a distant 3th choice. It's not a recruiting hot-bed. Small population. ou's name and stadium...not a big deal to me.
Posted on 7/13/15 at 10:55 am to Stlox
Ox,
I agree with everything you said. 90% chance nothing happens in the next few years, but its fun to talk about.
I have a character flaw in that I enjoy rustling OU fans. I try to do it in a way that won't get me banned. Very funny listening to their responses thinking they are so great and powerful and can dictate their terms where ever they go.
I've probably been a little too hard on Okie State in that thread, but I'm trying to make them understand there is absolutely no chance IMO that the SEC would take both OK teams for a lot of reasons.
I agree with everything you said. 90% chance nothing happens in the next few years, but its fun to talk about.
I have a character flaw in that I enjoy rustling OU fans. I try to do it in a way that won't get me banned. Very funny listening to their responses thinking they are so great and powerful and can dictate their terms where ever they go.
I've probably been a little too hard on Okie State in that thread, but I'm trying to make them understand there is absolutely no chance IMO that the SEC would take both OK teams for a lot of reasons.
This post was edited on 7/13/15 at 11:05 am
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News