Started By
Message
re: Want a good laugh? Chip on realignment, 5 years later.
Posted on 6/19/15 at 8:15 am to tmc94
Posted on 6/19/15 at 8:15 am to tmc94
The politicians will NEVER let the Sips destroy Tech, Baylor and now TCU in a fashion close to what happened to the SWC.
So something will have to happen to make it acceptable if whorn u will be allowed to leave when the GOR is up. The big 12 or some form of it that will be recognized as a power 5 will have to remain in tact. How will that happen? Will adding UH and UCF both with 50,000+ students along with something like BYU and or Boise be enough?
So something will have to happen to make it acceptable if whorn u will be allowed to leave when the GOR is up. The big 12 or some form of it that will be recognized as a power 5 will have to remain in tact. How will that happen? Will adding UH and UCF both with 50,000+ students along with something like BYU and or Boise be enough?
1
Posted on 6/19/15 at 8:42 am to Old Sarge
TWO things that must place outer boundaries on any conversation about realignment:
1) Politically, UTw will not be able to hang Tech & Baylor out to dry. The greatest trick we pulled in the whole realignment move was sticking UTw with that albatross around their necks and getting off scot-free from those succubi for eternity. The Horns HAVE to find a Power Conference home for those losers if they leave, be that with them or somewhere else. So some conference has to eat that stank sandwich in order to get UT & OU. The B1G, which is UTs best home because it has great academics but doesn't present the time zone issues that the PAC does, has pretty much said "no thanks" to that.
2) The PAC, which has been the only conference willing to take on Tech and OSU to get UT & OU, has its network with FOX. The Longhorn Network is with ESPN, and it's with ESPN because FOX controls the PAC! The whole reason why ESPN ponied up for the LHN in the first place was to keep UT from joining the PAC and thereby letting FOX into the Central Time Zone with the PAC Network. ESPN wants FOX's PAC Network stuck out on the Pacific so that no one east of the Rockies can stay up late enough to watch any of the PAC Network games. As such, there's no way ESPN will let UT out of the contract in order to join the PAC as it plays against the very reason ESPN started the LHN in the first place!
So they're (UTw) stuck between a rock and a hard place.
1) Politically, UTw will not be able to hang Tech & Baylor out to dry. The greatest trick we pulled in the whole realignment move was sticking UTw with that albatross around their necks and getting off scot-free from those succubi for eternity. The Horns HAVE to find a Power Conference home for those losers if they leave, be that with them or somewhere else. So some conference has to eat that stank sandwich in order to get UT & OU. The B1G, which is UTs best home because it has great academics but doesn't present the time zone issues that the PAC does, has pretty much said "no thanks" to that.
2) The PAC, which has been the only conference willing to take on Tech and OSU to get UT & OU, has its network with FOX. The Longhorn Network is with ESPN, and it's with ESPN because FOX controls the PAC! The whole reason why ESPN ponied up for the LHN in the first place was to keep UT from joining the PAC and thereby letting FOX into the Central Time Zone with the PAC Network. ESPN wants FOX's PAC Network stuck out on the Pacific so that no one east of the Rockies can stay up late enough to watch any of the PAC Network games. As such, there's no way ESPN will let UT out of the contract in order to join the PAC as it plays against the very reason ESPN started the LHN in the first place!
So they're (UTw) stuck between a rock and a hard place.
This post was edited on 6/19/15 at 8:48 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:49 pm to Cooter Davenport
Posted on 6/26/15 at 12:40 am to cardboardboxer
That's pure gold 
Posted on 6/26/15 at 10:09 am to cardboardboxer
Texas is tied with K-State and BELOW West Virginia.
That's not because they actually have a smaller fanbase or market than West Virgina (I don't like them but I'm not delusional), but because they're marooning their games out on the LHN, which you have to have cable, from a provider that carries it, with a sports package, and then purposefully hunt for among the channels in order to watch. It has so few viewers it fails to achieve a rating a lot of the time. These other schools are playing on ESPN 1 or 2 or on a major network, which everyone has either over the air or via basic cable. Schools ranked higher than Texas are getting viewers from people just flipping channels.
That's the aspect of the LHN that isn't discussed enough. YES, they're getting paid for it (though less than we'll make off of the SECN next year), but the COST was 1) running off several good teams from the conference and now having a home schedule that is boring, resulting in declining interest and ticket sales and 2) a dramatic loss of exposure of their team and brand to the general public. Joe Public isn't watching UT games anymore. Joe Recruit isn't either. The impact won't be immediate, but in 10 years' time, they'll have fewer casual fans, thus less merchandise sales, and less interest from recruits. That's a downward spiral. It's terrible for them. They're like Narcissus and the LHN vanity project is the pondwater reflection they're drowning in.
That's not because they actually have a smaller fanbase or market than West Virgina (I don't like them but I'm not delusional), but because they're marooning their games out on the LHN, which you have to have cable, from a provider that carries it, with a sports package, and then purposefully hunt for among the channels in order to watch. It has so few viewers it fails to achieve a rating a lot of the time. These other schools are playing on ESPN 1 or 2 or on a major network, which everyone has either over the air or via basic cable. Schools ranked higher than Texas are getting viewers from people just flipping channels.
That's the aspect of the LHN that isn't discussed enough. YES, they're getting paid for it (though less than we'll make off of the SECN next year), but the COST was 1) running off several good teams from the conference and now having a home schedule that is boring, resulting in declining interest and ticket sales and 2) a dramatic loss of exposure of their team and brand to the general public. Joe Public isn't watching UT games anymore. Joe Recruit isn't either. The impact won't be immediate, but in 10 years' time, they'll have fewer casual fans, thus less merchandise sales, and less interest from recruits. That's a downward spiral. It's terrible for them. They're like Narcissus and the LHN vanity project is the pondwater reflection they're drowning in.
This post was edited on 6/26/15 at 10:13 am
Posted on 6/26/15 at 10:48 am to Cooter Davenport
The fun part is that our number is below the mark. Our SEC Network game vs USC is averaged in as a 0 (aka just like what is dragging down Texas's average). Next year I expect ESPN to post SEC Network ratings, and when that happens we will be a top ten program for viewers.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 4:05 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Next year I expect ESPN to post SEC Network ratings
they are not planning to until year 3
They are however internally discussing expanding the channel offering as there is a lot more content being produced than SECN can air
Posted on 6/28/15 at 4:22 pm to tmc94
quote:
They are however internally discussing expanding the channel offering as there is a lot more content being produced than SECN can air
as in actually using the alternate SECN channel as something more than a place for runnoff games and Paul Finebaum simulcasts?
Posted on 6/28/15 at 4:40 pm to Dr RC
Not really. They don't get paid for the Alt channel.
It's more likely an SECN2 type of thing or an East/West split longer term. Probably need a couple of years to build out. I think expansion would also be meaningful as it needs football games and there isn't enough runover without reducing inventory somewhere else (which they can't do since they sold it with X number of football games)
I think it's going to be the push for the next round of expansion which is why I posted it here. With 2 more teams you have 1-2 games per week to guarantee at least 12 weeks with a football game on "SECN2." If you can sell that for $0.40 in market and $0.05 out, you're talking about $120-150m more revenue annually for virtually the same production costs.
The unmitigated success of the channel has them considering these sorts of things
It's more likely an SECN2 type of thing or an East/West split longer term. Probably need a couple of years to build out. I think expansion would also be meaningful as it needs football games and there isn't enough runover without reducing inventory somewhere else (which they can't do since they sold it with X number of football games)
I think it's going to be the push for the next round of expansion which is why I posted it here. With 2 more teams you have 1-2 games per week to guarantee at least 12 weeks with a football game on "SECN2." If you can sell that for $0.40 in market and $0.05 out, you're talking about $120-150m more revenue annually for virtually the same production costs.
The unmitigated success of the channel has them considering these sorts of things
Posted on 6/28/15 at 7:20 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
K-State
Well, they do have a Wizard
Posted on 6/29/15 at 1:37 pm to tmc94
tmc,
Fascinating that there are already discussions of an "SEC2". I knew the SECN was a success, but that's crazy.
Since expansion is about $$, and it looks like most of the $$ are coming from the SECN, any hints at what the "Big Board" for SEC expansion looks like? The conventional forum wisdom is no duplication w/in the footprint, preferably getting a team from each of Virginia and North Carolina.
But with Boren's recent remarks, if the Sooners decide they can split w/ UTx and leave w/o OSU, would the SEC take OU? Does the OU brand make up for the relative smallness of potential subscriber base?
Also, if you know, do the SEC decision makers ever worry about welcoming in a team like OU that will be very competitive, but not bring with it much of an expansion of recruiting territory?
Fascinating that there are already discussions of an "SEC2". I knew the SECN was a success, but that's crazy.
Since expansion is about $$, and it looks like most of the $$ are coming from the SECN, any hints at what the "Big Board" for SEC expansion looks like? The conventional forum wisdom is no duplication w/in the footprint, preferably getting a team from each of Virginia and North Carolina.
But with Boren's recent remarks, if the Sooners decide they can split w/ UTx and leave w/o OSU, would the SEC take OU? Does the OU brand make up for the relative smallness of potential subscriber base?
Also, if you know, do the SEC decision makers ever worry about welcoming in a team like OU that will be very competitive, but not bring with it much of an expansion of recruiting territory?
Posted on 6/29/15 at 2:15 pm to Mirthomatic
OU doesn't bring much to the table from the standpoint of in-state SEC Network viewers, but it has a national following and big name recognition. It gets eyes on TV sets nationwide. So it's an exception to the "only expand for the sake of the SEC Network footprint" logic, because OU would give a nice boost to the value of the traditional network contract when it comes up.
That said, no way OU could get away from OSU. In a scenario where OU was leaving the Big 12, that would mean that the Big 12 would have already failed or would fail as a result. With no more Big 12, OU coming to the SEC would mean OSU going to a mid-major because the SEC isn't taking them and they're not attractive alone to the PAC. The State of Oklahoma won't let that happen, so OU to the SEC is a pipe-dream to discuss.
That said, no way OU could get away from OSU. In a scenario where OU was leaving the Big 12, that would mean that the Big 12 would have already failed or would fail as a result. With no more Big 12, OU coming to the SEC would mean OSU going to a mid-major because the SEC isn't taking them and they're not attractive alone to the PAC. The State of Oklahoma won't let that happen, so OU to the SEC is a pipe-dream to discuss.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 2:51 pm to Mirthomatic
First, never say never to anything. Landscapes change and what drives future revenue may or may not be what drives current. For instance an SEC2 would be about broader quality content, not necessarily new markets. So it could put schools like FSU or the like back in play.
I don't know what the expansion list looks like or if they even really have an order. But of course OU has to be on the SEC board. Think too many Ags dismiss them and Cooter's argument above pretty much nails it. OU isn't just a football brand, they have a solid fanbase that travels, they have a good overall AD, and they are a decent geographical fit who would immediately create compelling regional games vs Mizzou and Arky. They check every box for an expansion target except a large state population.
And despite the fact that they massively overrate their own value (as virtually every fanbase does, including ours), you'd in fact have to be crazy not to take them. But I also agree with Cooter that OU isn't separating from OSU, and in the current environment, I don't see the SEC taking on OSU. Another big problem in taking OU is you need a partner worth moving for. OU is valuable, but they aren't quite valuable enough that you take them and figure out 16.
But I think Boren's comments were more obvious than that. The B12 is going to become unstable as the GOR winds down. Expansion is blocked because the small schools won't take a reduced conference cut and less access to OU/UTx without an extension to the GOR. UTx won't accept an extension as they want to keep their options open.
It creates a very tense and unstable conference and OU is stuck in the middle since they are determined to keep OSU by their side (thus reducing their own options). I think Boren is just forcing the issue. They can't keep going forward as 10 rag tag schools with no cohesion.
I believe the B12 is a workable long-term conference but everyone has to fully commit to it. He pointed his finger directly at the party they all need clarity from by making veiled comments about Texas. And he did it just ahead of the Media Days knowing full well it's going to be a topic of conversation ADs, specifically Patterson, won't be able to sidestep.
I don't know what the expansion list looks like or if they even really have an order. But of course OU has to be on the SEC board. Think too many Ags dismiss them and Cooter's argument above pretty much nails it. OU isn't just a football brand, they have a solid fanbase that travels, they have a good overall AD, and they are a decent geographical fit who would immediately create compelling regional games vs Mizzou and Arky. They check every box for an expansion target except a large state population.
And despite the fact that they massively overrate their own value (as virtually every fanbase does, including ours), you'd in fact have to be crazy not to take them. But I also agree with Cooter that OU isn't separating from OSU, and in the current environment, I don't see the SEC taking on OSU. Another big problem in taking OU is you need a partner worth moving for. OU is valuable, but they aren't quite valuable enough that you take them and figure out 16.
But I think Boren's comments were more obvious than that. The B12 is going to become unstable as the GOR winds down. Expansion is blocked because the small schools won't take a reduced conference cut and less access to OU/UTx without an extension to the GOR. UTx won't accept an extension as they want to keep their options open.
It creates a very tense and unstable conference and OU is stuck in the middle since they are determined to keep OSU by their side (thus reducing their own options). I think Boren is just forcing the issue. They can't keep going forward as 10 rag tag schools with no cohesion.
I believe the B12 is a workable long-term conference but everyone has to fully commit to it. He pointed his finger directly at the party they all need clarity from by making veiled comments about Texas. And he did it just ahead of the Media Days knowing full well it's going to be a topic of conversation ADs, specifically Patterson, won't be able to sidestep.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 3:49 pm to tmc94
Exactly.
Boren is correctly forseeing the death-wobble the conference will enter once it enters the last several years of the GOR. What he's saying is if they don't expand, the conference will be a dead-man walking for years in advance of the GOR. It's already clear that in the current state of things, UTw and OU will refuse to agree to extend the GOR, so schools will have to begin the scramble for new conference homes starting a few years out from the deadline.
We predicted it, but it was not CERTAIN until recently in the minds of UTw and thus the other conference members that with the current membership the conference is marginalized and the schedule is unappealing and ticket sales and TV viewership are in decline, making it necessary to chart a new home at the end of the GOR or be left behind by the big schools in the SEC, PAC, & B1G. That's clear to most UTw prognosticators and their smarter fans now and it's pretty much openly stated.
It didn't HAVE to happen though. They could have added Louisville, Cinci, W-VA, & UCF and had a competitive-enough league with 12 teams, a broad geographic spread, been in two more high population states aside from Texas, and had a conference championship game. That would've been stable. But... it is what it is now.
Boren is correctly forseeing the death-wobble the conference will enter once it enters the last several years of the GOR. What he's saying is if they don't expand, the conference will be a dead-man walking for years in advance of the GOR. It's already clear that in the current state of things, UTw and OU will refuse to agree to extend the GOR, so schools will have to begin the scramble for new conference homes starting a few years out from the deadline.
We predicted it, but it was not CERTAIN until recently in the minds of UTw and thus the other conference members that with the current membership the conference is marginalized and the schedule is unappealing and ticket sales and TV viewership are in decline, making it necessary to chart a new home at the end of the GOR or be left behind by the big schools in the SEC, PAC, & B1G. That's clear to most UTw prognosticators and their smarter fans now and it's pretty much openly stated.
It didn't HAVE to happen though. They could have added Louisville, Cinci, W-VA, & UCF and had a competitive-enough league with 12 teams, a broad geographic spread, been in two more high population states aside from Texas, and had a conference championship game. That would've been stable. But... it is what it is now.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 4:01 pm to tmc94
Despite two major hurdles, I can't help but still think that UTw, TTech, OU & OSU wind up the the PAC. That gives the PAC TV markets in TX for their conference network, gets their games into the Central Time Zone, and adds two national marquee programs in UTw & OU.
The hurdles are 1A) Baylor and 1B) LHN.
1A) I think the Baylor problem is solved by state politicians thinking more "we must save UT!!!" than "what about poor Baylor?". I think UT will be in bad shape by then and it will be clear that the only way out of permenent marginalization will be to join the PAC. Baylor will be looked at as a sad but necessary sacrifice to save beloved UT. At times when UT is doing okay, that's too big a pill to swallow, but when they're caught between a rock and a Baylor place, they'll cut Baylor loose to save UT. Everything in life is about context and perspective. In that perspective, with UT hanging in the balance, it's going to be "sorry Baylor."
1B) UT will by then be willing to rid itself of the LHN. They'll watch Vandy making more off of its Tier 3 rights and won't see a use for the Vanity Project anymore. But ESPN weilds that thing as a device to keep the Fox-owned PAC Network marooned out on the West Coast and out of Texas, so I don't know how this knot is unraveled.
The hurdles are 1A) Baylor and 1B) LHN.
1A) I think the Baylor problem is solved by state politicians thinking more "we must save UT!!!" than "what about poor Baylor?". I think UT will be in bad shape by then and it will be clear that the only way out of permenent marginalization will be to join the PAC. Baylor will be looked at as a sad but necessary sacrifice to save beloved UT. At times when UT is doing okay, that's too big a pill to swallow, but when they're caught between a rock and a Baylor place, they'll cut Baylor loose to save UT. Everything in life is about context and perspective. In that perspective, with UT hanging in the balance, it's going to be "sorry Baylor."
1B) UT will by then be willing to rid itself of the LHN. They'll watch Vandy making more off of its Tier 3 rights and won't see a use for the Vanity Project anymore. But ESPN weilds that thing as a device to keep the Fox-owned PAC Network marooned out on the West Coast and out of Texas, so I don't know how this knot is unraveled.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 4:05 pm to Cooter Davenport
Then they can start a mini SWC.
Baylor
TCU
UH
Rice
SMU
Ark St
Baylor
TCU
UH
Rice
SMU
Ark St
Posted on 6/29/15 at 5:03 pm to tmc94
quote:
The B12 is going to become unstable as the GOR winds down.
Better start stockpiling
right now.Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:05 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Baylor
TCU
UH
Rice
SMU
Ark St
UTSA, Texas State, and North Texas make nine
UTEP gets the
Posted on 6/30/15 at 5:13 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
It didn't HAVE to happen though. They could have added Louisville, Cinci, W-VA, & UCF and had a competitive-enough league with 12 teams, a broad geographic spread, been in two more high population states aside from Texas, and had a conference championship game. That would've been stable. But... it is what it is now.
Would that really be stable, though? They could do that right now, and the only swap would be TCU for Louisville. They could add UCF and Cincy yesterday if they wanted, but they aren't doing it. I think the B12 had to get to 10 to remain a conference, but were told by the TV partners that only a few schools like FSU or Clemson (or Notre Dame) would move the needle enough to justify expanding back to 12.
It's bad enough being a patchwork conference, it's worse being a patchwork comprised of dirty rags that no one else wants.
So they opted for the most $$, hoping that the competitiveness of the conference would make up for the prestige hit for being the smallest, most-often-raided conference. And I imagine they thought they could wait to see what other programs would come available. But UTx and OU picked exactly that time to start sucking (horns more than sooners). Having to rely on small private schools for conference pride is not a good look. And the recruiting hit that both UTx and OU are taking is going to make it harder for them to get out of the doldrums any time soon (especially if TCU/Baylor keep whipping them).
All that to say: why would any tent-pole school like FSU want to go there? And if no other brand name schools are interested, adding afterthoughts isn't going to improve their reputation. Probably once A&M and Mizzou left, and definitely once Notre Dame committed to the ACC, I don't think the B12 had any real options. 4th-best P5 conference is pretty much their ceiling until the conference eventually blows up.
Posted on 7/1/15 at 9:17 pm to Mirthomatic
I don't think they ever seriously considered going to 12 and being stable until it was too late. They thought 'oh with 10 we can get paid the same & make the natty game more easily (this was pre-playoff) because we don't have a conference championship game.' Done. Now that there's a playoff and their no championship game having asses got left out, they realize that they need to be a 12 team conference to survive.
Page 3 of 4
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News