Started By
Message
re: Expansion Options
Posted on 11/21/12 at 1:01 pm to TeLeFaWx
Posted on 11/21/12 at 1:01 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
But if the SEC could have chosen to get tu/OU or tu/A&M who do you think they would have chosen? OU is still a blue blood, a national brand, with one of the most historic rivalries in all of college football, and provides immense value.
Now you're changing the entire argument. Of course you choose schools in different states. That's a silly question.
That'd be like asking me if the SEC could take Florida / FSU or Florida / Va Tech who would they take? They'd take Va Tech but not because Va Tech would bring the conference more money than FSU would if each were stand alones, but because the footprint would be increased since you already have Florida.
Again, I am fully aware that OU is a strong brand. But your argument has nothing to do with what I stated, which is 100% accurate. And conferences like the B1G would give 2 shites about that because they don't bring the entire package. TAMU does. Sorry. Call it being lucky to be in such a big state, call it being lucky that we're a strong academic brand, etc. But it's the truth.
This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 1:18 pm
0
Posted on 11/21/12 at 1:08 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:Not sure we're arguing here.
TeLeFaWx
My thought is this- pretty sure the goal is 16 teams in the SEC. Now, I grant that A&M makes sense; you can now have emotionally satisfying games with LSU and Arkansas, to replace the Texas rivalry. That's a 2-for-1, and all three (SEC) schools will benefit.
But- Missouri? As we see, the ACC has schools ready to move. Maryland just did, and they would have fit the geography better than Mizzou does. So would the NC schools, or the Va schools. Far more balance to the East.
BUT... if you add Oklahoma into the mix, then- [link=(look at the map)]look at the map[/link] and the histories. Mizzou (and Okie St) have been with the Sooners since the old Big 8. Mizzou would be a familiar traveling arraingement (and possible ally in a new conference), and Mizzou is now the northern point of an SEC pyramid- with Tennessee and Kentucky to the Southeast, Arkansas to the South, and Oklahoma to the Southwest (and pointing right into Texas).
Posted on 11/21/12 at 2:37 pm to Scoob
Regarding some of the guys arguing how A&M is more desirable than Oklahoma...
ok you go with that.
Quick thoughts here- 1st off, the state of Indiana isn't very big in and of itself. It also has several schools in the B1G, in Indiana and Purdue. So why anyone would want that other school, you know, the one in South Bend, doesn't make a lick of sense. Not with your argument. You're much better served getting Rutgers out of New Jersey, Pitt out of Pennsylvania, or especially Syracuse out of New York.
Now, does anyone truly think that?
Next argument: oh my, the size of the school and enrollment. A&M is big. Oh boy; and you know what else? Miami, the U- it's fricking tiny. Still under 10 thousand, if my guess is correct. Can't understand anyone wanting the Hurricanes, ever, not with that enrollment.
Again, flawed argument.
Why these examples? Because you can legitimately include Oklahoma in FOOTBALL COMPARISONS with Miami and Notre Dame. National drawing power. Brand name. You can't do that with A&M. I'm sorry if there are some Aggie homers out there that this offends, but it's true.
There are very few marquee teams out there. Oklahoma is one of them (and btw moreso than Texas). It appears that it is the most likely to be in play right now, and it's interesting that the SEC's expansion to 14 (a very odd number) creates a very friendly set of dynamics for Oklahoma to consider. Oklahoma fits right into the map between Missouri and Texas (and this wouldn't have been the case without these new teams), and most minor sports could travel around the league with minimally more expense than it does in the Big 12.
ok you go with that.
Quick thoughts here- 1st off, the state of Indiana isn't very big in and of itself. It also has several schools in the B1G, in Indiana and Purdue. So why anyone would want that other school, you know, the one in South Bend, doesn't make a lick of sense. Not with your argument. You're much better served getting Rutgers out of New Jersey, Pitt out of Pennsylvania, or especially Syracuse out of New York.
Now, does anyone truly think that?
Next argument: oh my, the size of the school and enrollment. A&M is big. Oh boy; and you know what else? Miami, the U- it's fricking tiny. Still under 10 thousand, if my guess is correct. Can't understand anyone wanting the Hurricanes, ever, not with that enrollment.
Again, flawed argument.
Why these examples? Because you can legitimately include Oklahoma in FOOTBALL COMPARISONS with Miami and Notre Dame. National drawing power. Brand name. You can't do that with A&M. I'm sorry if there are some Aggie homers out there that this offends, but it's true.
There are very few marquee teams out there. Oklahoma is one of them (and btw moreso than Texas). It appears that it is the most likely to be in play right now, and it's interesting that the SEC's expansion to 14 (a very odd number) creates a very friendly set of dynamics for Oklahoma to consider. Oklahoma fits right into the map between Missouri and Texas (and this wouldn't have been the case without these new teams), and most minor sports could travel around the league with minimally more expense than it does in the Big 12.
Posted on 11/21/12 at 2:47 pm to BigD Ag
quote:Oh, wow. Just... wow
You'd be the only commish in America that would take OU over the Ags and you'd be out of a job immediately upon making that decision. And FWIW the B1G did court TAMU. There were plenty of articles written about that and were plastered all over Northwestern's sites. And our ratings have done just fine this year, better than OU's.
You do realize the SEC has, for the past fricking decade, controlled college football, and without A&M in the mix, right? And that the conference that did have A&M, Texas AND Oklahoma is crumbling into shite (and had begun doing so before we rescued you)?
Furthermore, I doubt anyone's impressed by the B1G's moves around here. They've been trying, and failing, to keep pace with the SEC. But sure, if you think you can piece together an athletic schedule with Minnesota, Penn St, etc every year and not have logistical nightmares, go right ahead.
This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 11/21/12 at 2:52 pm to Scoob
You are mixing apples and oranges.
Yes OU has more media recognition, national titles, etc than A&M.
A&M has a larger pool of people as potential SEC network content subscribers.
Two different criteria all together.
Yes OU has more media recognition, national titles, etc than A&M.
A&M has a larger pool of people as potential SEC network content subscribers.
Two different criteria all together.
Posted on 11/21/12 at 3:07 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
But if the SEC could have chosen to get tu/OU or tu/A&M who do you think they would have chosen? OU is still a blue blood, a national brand, with one of the most historic rivalries in all of college football, and provides immense value.
They would take tu/OU, but not just because of OU's history. As has been said a billion times here, the name of the game is total poulation within the footprint, and OU would add 3.8 millon people you don't get with A&M because we overlap with tu.
Now if its a straight up choice between OU and A&M, I still think they would have picked us. Why? Because 25.6 million people is WAY more than 3.8 million people. Sure OU would carry their entire state and we would not carry all of Texas, but there is way more potential in our base then theirs.
The SEC before any expansion happened had the most power programs. The SEC doesn't really need more power programs to sell its brand- they just need footprint. Hence us and Mizzou.
A conference like the ACC or Big 12 DO need power programs to keep the conference stable. But the SEC could probably lose a power program and be just fine given it has so many.
Saying that, the SEC would love to have OU to add those 3.8 million people and to get another big program. They also flew to OU that day in 2010 when our invite was dropped off. They don't need OU though, especially if the price is Okie Lite.
This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 11/21/12 at 3:26 pm to cardboardboxer
OU will never leave UT. Why because of the recruiting and exposure they get in Texas. Then you have the OSU issue the politicans in the state don't let them go without little brother.
Posted on 11/21/12 at 4:28 pm to Scoob
You really don't understand the motivations of conference expansion do you? Nor do you understand anything about how the TV contracts work or about how the money is made, both currently or in the future.
Your argument makes logical sense to the casual observer, I agree with that much, but it is tremendously far off in terms of financial realities.
This isn't about "people actually watching the games." It is about "people demanding the games(SEC network) in a given viewing area as part of their basic cable package" thus allowing the price/subscriber to be driven up. In this regard, OU brings about 1/5 of the $$ to the table that aTm does. Now, they make up some of the difference in tier 1(CBS games) appeal, but it is not even CLOSE to enough to overcome the previous deficit.
This will be obvious when the reworked tier 1(CBS) and tier 2(ESPN) SEC contract is revealed. I'm betting that the increases are minimal in tier 1(aTm not bringing a ton of national appeal) but MUCH more substantial on tier 2(which is a much larger portion of the total contract anyway)... but tier 3 is where the MEGAbucks lie in the future...and also an aspect in which OU brings VERY little to the table.
LINK / This explains it somewhat(about the SEC adding Mizzou and aTm). We were already outpacing everyone else by 25% in football viewership before this addition. It'll be 40% plus now. That means we should(and will) make 40% more total tv revenue than everyone else once all the pieces are in place...
Your argument makes logical sense to the casual observer, I agree with that much, but it is tremendously far off in terms of financial realities.
This isn't about "people actually watching the games." It is about "people demanding the games(SEC network) in a given viewing area as part of their basic cable package" thus allowing the price/subscriber to be driven up. In this regard, OU brings about 1/5 of the $$ to the table that aTm does. Now, they make up some of the difference in tier 1(CBS games) appeal, but it is not even CLOSE to enough to overcome the previous deficit.
This will be obvious when the reworked tier 1(CBS) and tier 2(ESPN) SEC contract is revealed. I'm betting that the increases are minimal in tier 1(aTm not bringing a ton of national appeal) but MUCH more substantial on tier 2(which is a much larger portion of the total contract anyway)... but tier 3 is where the MEGAbucks lie in the future...and also an aspect in which OU brings VERY little to the table.
LINK / This explains it somewhat(about the SEC adding Mizzou and aTm). We were already outpacing everyone else by 25% in football viewership before this addition. It'll be 40% plus now. That means we should(and will) make 40% more total tv revenue than everyone else once all the pieces are in place...
This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 11/21/12 at 4:56 pm to Notre Dame Fan
Ok, several observations here:
1: A&M is now in the SEC. They are not being considered instead of anyone. As far as I can guess, the SEC is looking to add teams, not trade them, so any OU-A&M comparisons are irrelevant and pointless
2: Expansion has to be geographically feasible. The NCAA and Title IX require there to be more than 1 sport at a university, and to have a comparable number of women's sports. The SEC most likely isn't interested in a Big East-style several-sports only partner, it will want schools all in.
3: Expansion likely goes to 16, and stays there. So there are 2 spots to be filled.
4: Glamorous teams would be nice. Mizzou didn't add the wow factor; A&M was OK but not super-duper.
So, who's around? Clemson or Georgia Tech- about on the level of A&M, but don't add anything to the geography. You still have the Missouri problem (kind of distant with no real familiar opponent) unaddressed. Fla St, that's a pretty hot choice, but again it leaves Mizzou as an odd move. Oklahoma- as sexy as Florida St, and balances the geography of the conference. Mizzou doesn't have the rivalry with the Sooners a lot of other Big 12 schools do, but they do have that long Big 8 history together. Mizzou + A&M together, they bracket the Oklahoma schools, so there is continuity of travel for the fricking volleyball teams (A&M, Mizzou, Arky, LSU, Oklahoma-- this gives you a contiguous area where travel isn't obscene).
Those who say OU will never leave UT- you do realize this was said, with more certainty, about A&M, right?
1: A&M is now in the SEC. They are not being considered instead of anyone. As far as I can guess, the SEC is looking to add teams, not trade them, so any OU-A&M comparisons are irrelevant and pointless
2: Expansion has to be geographically feasible. The NCAA and Title IX require there to be more than 1 sport at a university, and to have a comparable number of women's sports. The SEC most likely isn't interested in a Big East-style several-sports only partner, it will want schools all in.
3: Expansion likely goes to 16, and stays there. So there are 2 spots to be filled.
4: Glamorous teams would be nice. Mizzou didn't add the wow factor; A&M was OK but not super-duper.
So, who's around? Clemson or Georgia Tech- about on the level of A&M, but don't add anything to the geography. You still have the Missouri problem (kind of distant with no real familiar opponent) unaddressed. Fla St, that's a pretty hot choice, but again it leaves Mizzou as an odd move. Oklahoma- as sexy as Florida St, and balances the geography of the conference. Mizzou doesn't have the rivalry with the Sooners a lot of other Big 12 schools do, but they do have that long Big 8 history together. Mizzou + A&M together, they bracket the Oklahoma schools, so there is continuity of travel for the fricking volleyball teams (A&M, Mizzou, Arky, LSU, Oklahoma-- this gives you a contiguous area where travel isn't obscene).
Those who say OU will never leave UT- you do realize this was said, with more certainty, about A&M, right?
Posted on 11/21/12 at 5:11 pm to engie
quote:No, I don't. I freely admit that. Pretty sure only a select few do; otherwise most conferences would be successful.
You really don't understand the motivations of conference expansion do you? Nor do you understand anything about how the TV contracts work or about how the money is made, both currently or in the future.
Explain why the B1G took Nebraska? Why did the Pac 12 take Utah?
The B1G just made it to 16. You know, you can go on yacking about the SEC network if you like; I'm not buying it. I'll likely tune into the big game on ESPN or CBS. Hey- you know what? THAT'S the SEC. You know what else? The SEC will want that to continue. Oh, and the B1G, the Big 12, and others will want it NOT TO. Interestingly, the ACC just might have angled into NBC's deal with Notre Dame.
Adding Oklahoma to the SEC equation adds to our attractiveness, to ESPN. OU-Bama/UGA/Fla/LSU gives the league yet another marquee game to push, driving the SEC price higher.
Keep your conference networks if you like. I like the big network exposure and money.
Posted on 11/21/12 at 5:27 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I agree with you, OU is a more national program. I don't like Aggies that can't see this. I will say you are underestimating the growth A&M has made in the last 30 years, and how that impacts things. LSU is much like an OU, the whole state is devoted to thay school. A&M doesn't have near that appeal, as we have burnt orange brethren to deal with, but we currently have the 7th largest school in the country, located in the state with easily the most college football fans in the country. The ceiling for A&M is that of an OU. If A&M was in the top 10 over the last decade like the Sooners were, you would see the number of people that cared. There are 25 million people in the state of Texas alone that have some sort of strong opinion about Texas A&M, either good or bad.
it has nothing to do with the national ratings and everything to do with how many cable and satellite systems you can force into carrying the SEC Network on their basic tier services.
25 million people in TX to 3.8 in Okie = Texas having a shitload more households to squeeze money out of. That is why we bring the big bucks. That is why the SEC wanted us. The ratings don't have to be huge. They just have to be good enough that enough people will demand their TV packages include the SEC Network on their basic tier packages.
A&M combined with the rest of the SEC can do that in Texas. Hell, the Houston and DFW metro areas alone have 12.5 million people which is more people than every other SEC state save for Florida at 19 million. Georgia is #3 with 9.8 million FWIW.
This post was edited on 11/21/12 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 11/21/12 at 6:32 pm to RockChalkTiger
Since OK wasn't a state until 1907, leave 'em out and just do the TX team.
Posted on 11/21/12 at 6:36 pm to Dr RC
When the B1G turns down Mizzou and grabs Rutgers, you know its all about TV's nowdays. What else does Rutgers give them? The honor of being the school that Mr. Magoo fictitously attended?
Posted on 11/21/12 at 6:44 pm to Javelina
quote:
1860 or stay as is.
Posted on 11/22/12 at 10:38 pm to Big12fan
quote:Not exactly sure WHAT Rutgers gives them. Of course, the B1G seems to live in their own little world, and their strategy isn't exactly taking the nation by storm.
When the B1G turns down Mizzou and grabs Rutgers, you know its all about TV's nowdays. What else does Rutgers give them? The honor of being the school that Mr. Magoo fictitously attended?
To be fair, Mizzou does give us a better basketball footprint in addition to some access to St Louis. The B1G doesn't need more basketball teams.
I still say a nationally marketable team like Oklahoma brings as much or more to the table as a big market school like Rutgers. Add to that the oil money and influence that Okie St would throw in with T Boone Pickens, and (if kept in check) it could be beneficial.
Why the opposition to the Oklahoma schools? Fear of the teams doing well (Oklahoma in particular)? Memories of bad politics?
Posted on 11/22/12 at 11:11 pm to Scoob
OU by itself would be a good add. But not both, they wouldn't bring in enoufg TV revenue and everyone in the SEC would get a smaller piece of the pie. Ok St also isknd of bad academically and has a small fball stadium by SEC standards. Stoolwater isn't the best college town either.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News