re: Best Plan Ever to Maximize SEC $$ in the Future (Realignment/Expansion)

quote:

---

quote:
Rule 1: Know the thing you do and do it well. It would be tough to argue in any business to eliminate portions of the business which have been key to its overall success for years. Especially parts that still play the same vital role they have always played. Auburn, Vandy and MSU are too vital to eliminate. If you don't see the role they play in the success of the SEC then we are waisting time talking about it. I can't do much with micro-thinking.

Rule 2: Embrace needed change. A&M is and has been a huge success for the SEC. Most of the revenue explosion of the SEC network can be directly tied to the $1.40 shares in Texas. Missouri has also been a good addition but not nearly as important as A&M.

Rule 3: Don't make business decisions with your heart. Oklahoma and WVU would be heart choices to add to the SEC under any circumstance. They are a bad business decision. Which is ironic because you started out the OP by touting that "College sports is a business," IMHO if you run a business you might as well run it well. No reason to make bad business decisions just because it is a business.


Some rules that applies to and transcends business are:
Those who don't adapt, die.
It's not the big that eat the small, it's the fast who eat the slow.

quick summary of other points:
Saying one member is vital, just b/c they were here in the beginning is a personal decision/preference. Adding UNC and dropping one of the 3 mentioned would generate more $ for the conference...the same way expanding to MO and TX already did. Texas has a bigger following that aTm, both on the state and national level. Adding OK and WVU make geographic, media market, and overall revenue sense.Look at travel costs for the schools, or benefits of having teams closer by for visiting fans, or helping to expand a clearly defined geo footprint as well.

---

Well I see your ploy worked to charge up the rant today. The mico-thinking you exhibit is short sighted and fails to give credit to the obvious reality that the SEC is successful because of the passion the SEC rivalries bred. The current cable subscriber model will likely not be the gravy train forever but I suspect it is here for a while and it is why we won't see additions that are poor business decisions like Oklahoma or WVU.

In principle your arguments are rational about kicking out the 2 teams from each state and replacing them simply with teams from states currently outside of the SEC but then you make business 101 mistake of not knowing what you do and doing it well.

These rules of business you mentioned are far less import than the ones I originally mentioned.
1)Those who don't adapt, die.
2) It's not the big that eat the small, it's the fast who eat the slow.

Rule 1) Almost caused the world to prefer Pepsi over Coke…Did your dad work on the team who created "New Coke"? That was a genius business move costing one of the most successful companies in the world the largest drop in market share in history. I feel certain the SEC will adapt but they won't adapt in a manner led by micro-thinking like you suggest.

Rule 2) There are a lot of broke tech investors in this country that wish they went the big and slow route like the oil companies, energy companies, etc…and hadn't simply gone with the fast. It helps to be nimble in business but it is better to be a glacier.

Your plan actually makes sense for a small business like the Big 12. They typically make micro-decisions, micro-decision making is what keeps businesses small. The reward of a few more cable subscribers would be worth the loss of tradition, balance and excellence (if you could say the Big 12 has excellence at their small level). However, the SEC is more established, better diversified and wouldn't think about ideas like "Those who don't adapt, die or It's not the big that eat the small, it's the fast who eat the slow" because when your as big and stable as the SEC you don't worry about poor man's business philosophies.

In the Big 12 where your brand is wavering and was never strongly established because of micro-thinking kicking out Kansas State, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU and OSU might make sense if you add CSU, UCF, BYU, San Jose State and Ohio. Of course if you are selling sand in a dessert nobody is going to buy sand. The biggest advantage is the SEC is selling water in a dessert so even in the micro Big 12 I believe a strong argument could be made that what success you have is largely dependent on the natural balance of teams like
Texas Baylor Texas Tech and TCU
Oklahoma and OSU
Kansas and Kansas St

Nevermind, even at that level of business your ideas are still bad.