Texas & OK ask to join SEC? | Page 17 | The Boneyard

Texas & OK ask to join SEC?

ConnHuskBask said:
Adding anyone right now would be extremely shortsighted and decrease the value to the league as a whole. I suspect they'll keep their powder dry and wait until the ACC grant of rights is closer to its expiration. The idea some duo of Kansas, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State is a winning play is crazy.
Expand ...

2002 called, and it wants its realignment strategy back.

Who said anything about adding OSU or Iowa State? Although at the right price, maybe. The Big 10 needs to get bigger to diversify away its exposure to Ohio State and Michigan leaving, and it needs new markets. The idea that every team needs to make the same in conference revenue is as obsolete and stupid as adding schools for cable boxes. Setting some impossible standard for growth guarantees doing nothing until it is too late. Just ask the remaining Big 12 schools if they wish they had added schools 5 years ago.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
2002 called, and it wants its realignment strategy back.

Who said anything about adding OSU or Iowa State? Although at the right price, maybe. The Big 10 needs to get bigger to diversify away its exposure to Ohio State and Michigan leaving, and it needs new markets. The idea that every team needs to make the same in conference revenue is as obsolete and stupid as adding schools for cable boxes. Setting some impossible standard for growth guarantees doing nothing until it is too late. Just ask the remaining Big 12 schools if they wish they had added schools 5 years ago.
Expand ...
2035 called and hung up on you.

Honest question. what teams could the Big12 have added that would have kept OU and Texas in 2025? The answer? None. Texas was either going independent, heading to Big10 or ACC in a sweathear deal, or this move to the SEC. They were never staying. UCF, Houston, Cincy and Boise State weren't keeping them here.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
2002 called, and it wants its realignment strategy back.

Who said anything about adding OSU or Iowa State? Although at the right price, maybe. The Big 10 needs to get bigger to diversify away its exposure to Ohio State and Michigan leaving, and it needs new markets. The idea that every team needs to make the same in conference revenue is as obsolete and stupid as adding schools for cable boxes. Setting some impossible standard for growth guarantees doing nothing until it is too late. Just ask the remaining Big 12 schools if they wish they had added schools 5 years ago.
Expand ...

I don't disagree that unequal conference distributions seem like the next step, but until one of the major leagues actually does it, I don't believe they will.

I don't believe there is any chance the pac12 schools outright join the big ten, a scheduling alliance sure. But the idea USC, UCLA and Stanford are shipping their Olympic sports across the country from a stable league to this monstrosity.. again I'll believe it when I see it l.
 
djct1999 said:
2035 called and hung up on you.

Honest question. what teams could the Big12 have added that would have kept OU and Texas in 2025? The answer? None. Texas was either going independent, heading to Big10 or ACC in a sweathear deal, or this move to the SEC. They were never staying. UCF, Houston, Cincy and Boise State weren't keeping them here.
Expand ...

There is always a price at which an acquisition makes sense. In certain industries, corporations need to grow or die. Virtually every aspect of school conferences rewards scale, but the conferences, other than the ACC and SEC, are all so slow to act.

A 16 team Big 12 with 6 more schools that were 5 years into an upgrade to P5 would be a strong conference even if OU and Texas left. But adding a bunch of MWC and AAC schools now is too late. The programs have gone sideways or declined, and putting them in a league today with the Big 12 leftovers is just too late. This had to be done 5+ years ago.

The Big 10 without tOSU, Michigan and PSU is no better off.

The Pac 12 is dead league walking if it does not grow. It needs to lock up the west.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 are focused on the wrong things. They need more members, and they need a broader footprint. The only question is how much they are the willing to pay, but honestly, in this environment, they can buy cheap. That might not be the case in 5 years.

I stick by my theory that this round of realignment was triggered by the Alston Case. The NCAA and its members knew it was going to lose this case for years, and that ruling is an existential threat to the SEC.
 
.-.
Also the B1G has put a lot of its eggs in the rust belt and farm country. Probably best to diversify given population trends.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is always a price at which an acquisition makes sense. In certain industries, corporations need to grow or die. Virtually every aspect of school conferences rewards scale, but the conferences, other than the ACC and SEC, are all so slow to act.

A 16 team Big 12 with 6 more schools that were 5 years into an upgrade to P5 would be a strong conference even if OU and Texas left. But adding a bunch of MWC and AAC schools now is too late. The programs have gone sideways or declined, and putting them in a league today with the Big 12 leftovers is just too late. This had to be done 5+ years ago.

The Big 10 without tOSU, Michigan and PSU is no better off.

The Pac 12 is dead league walking if it does not grow. It needs to lock up the west.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 are focused on the wrong things. They need more members, and they need a broader footprint. The only question is how much they are the willing to pay, but honestly, in this environment, they can buy cheap. That might not be the case in 5 years.

I stick by my theory that this round of realignment was triggered by the Alston Case. The NCAA and its members knew it was going to lose this case for years, and that ruling is an existential threat to the SEC.
Expand ...

Who are you suggesting the Big Ten add, if not the remnants of the Big 12?
 
hoopsfan22 said:
Why would Texas go to the B1G if they get an invite from college sports biggest and richest conference?
Expand ...
Ask Texas fans. They see the SEC as rednecks and themselves as cosmopolitan.

Probably will change in time but who knows what'll happen in the future. The Big Ten might add the first American university on Mars.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is always a price at which an acquisition makes sense. In certain industries, corporations need to grow or die. Virtually every aspect of school conferences rewards scale, but the conferences, other than the ACC and SEC, are all so slow to act.

A 16 team Big 12 with 6 more schools that were 5 years into an upgrade to P5 would be a strong conference even if OU and Texas left. But adding a bunch of MWC and AAC schools now is too late. The programs have gone sideways or declined, and putting them in a league today with the Big 12 leftovers is just too late. This had to be done 5+ years ago.

The Big 10 without tOSU, Michigan and PSU is no better off.

The Pac 12 is dead league walking if it does not grow. It needs to lock up the west.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 are focused on the wrong things. They need more members, and they need a broader footprint. The only question is how much they are the willing to pay, but honestly, in this environment, they can buy cheap. That might not be the case in 5 years.

I stick by my theory that this round of realignment was triggered by the Alston Case. The NCAA and its members knew it was going to lose this case for years, and that ruling is an existential threat to the SEC.
Expand ...

Big 10 isn't focused on the wrong things. College sports is almost immaterial to the bottom line of any of those schools. The research money dwarfs it as does tuition. I know people talk about college sports like it's "big business" and it is compared to when it was really an amateur sport, but it's small potatoes really.

In the last real season, 2019, the Big 10 lead in revenue (it did in 2020 as well). B10 conference led the P5 in revenue in 2019 according to USA Today But that was just $781m. That's it. That's not a lot. Disney is #49 on the Fortune 500. ESPN is a piece of Disney, and they fund half of college football as a part of their expenditures.

College football will destroy itself, and the Big 10, like the Ivy League, will still mean something. They won't be losing any schools to the SEC. Bet bets to add, if they can make it work, is Kansas and Colorado.
 
.-.



-> If Texas and Oklahoma do in fact defect to the SEC, the Big 12’s “Left-Behind 8” may be in for a humbling reception as they begin exploring their options. The unfortunate reality is there’s very little difference between the TV interest in Kansas State and West Virginia and the interest for UCF or Houston. <-

-> Per its Form 990, the Big 12 distributed an average of $38.5 million to its members in fiscal year 2020. With TV contracts accounting for 62 percent of the conference’s $409 million in total revenue, it can reasonably be estimated that TV accounted for about $24 million of those schools’ distribution checks.

If the aforementioned TV consultants are correct in their estimate that Oklahoma and Texas generated 50 percent of that value, then the Left-Behind 8 would expect to see that number drop to $12 million per school. Even if the other revenue streams remained the same — unlikely, as the league would also produce fewer bowl and NCAA Tournament teams — their overall share would drop to $26.5 million

That’s about half what the Big Ten currently distributes to its members and about 40 percent of what the SEC is projected to reach if Oklahoma and Texas come aboard.

And that $12 million TV figure might prove too optimistic if/when the Big 12 negotiates its next contract. On one hand, sports rights in general have skyrocketed in the nine years since the conference last went to the market. On the other, such a depleted conference does not figure to garner a bidding war between networks, which could dampen the price. <-
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is always a price at which an acquisition makes sense. In certain industries, corporations need to grow or die. Virtually every aspect of school conferences rewards scale, but the conferences, other than the ACC and SEC, are all so slow to act.

A 16 team Big 12 with 6 more schools that were 5 years into an upgrade to P5 would be a strong conference even if OU and Texas left. But adding a bunch of MWC and AAC schools now is too late. The programs have gone sideways or declined, and putting them in a league today with the Big 12 leftovers is just too late. This had to be done 5+ years ago.

The Big 10 without tOSU, Michigan and PSU is no better off.

The Pac 12 is dead league walking if it does not grow. It needs to lock up the west.

The Big 10 and Pac 12 are focused on the wrong things. They need more members, and they need a broader footprint. The only question is how much they are the willing to pay, but honestly, in this environment, they can buy cheap. That might not be the case in 5 years.

I stick by my theory that this round of realignment was triggered by the Alston Case. The NCAA and its members knew it was going to lose this case for years, and that ruling is an existential threat to the SEC.
Expand ...
I agree with your last point. Maybe I am just far more fatalistic. To me, this is the end of college football as we know it. That means, its the end for 90% of the teams as we know it. The PAC 12 or Big 10 adding meaningless football schools will not help their ultimate fate. USC and OSU have little to worry about. Purdue, Illinois, Arizona, and Utah have as much to worry about as UConn.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
Who are you suggesting the Big Ten add, if not the remnants of the Big 12?
Expand ...

Alston would have revolutionized recruiting if everything had stayed the same. The blatant cheating schools like Auburn and Alabama had a massive advantage in a world where other schools were not cheating or just pushing the envelope on the edges. Now, everyone can pay their players, and literally any school can compete for top talent if it has a good marketing department. It is no longer about selling tickets or tradition, it is about turning high profile athletes into spokespeople, even on a local level, and then monetizing that in real time.

It is important to note that the ruling does not allow schools to pay players directly, it just says that the schools can not stop them from making additional income on their name, image and likeness. The schools still have a standing agreement between themselves to not pay players, for what that is worth.

What brand business isn't looking at a massive school like UCF and wondering how do we get more access to that customer base? One thing is for certain in this new environment, you got to play to get paid. The days of 5*s sitting on the bench for 3 years with the hope of playing their junior or senior year are OVER. It will be much more difficult for schools to stockpile talent, because recruits are leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table by not playing. It appears that a lot of the blue blood football schools reached this exact conclusion as Alston was working its way to the Supreme Court, because now we have the Super-SEC. The SEC is making a power play to wipe out its competition under the old recruiting model before their competitive advantage evaporates under the new recruiting model.

In a world where advertising and brands dominate, schools that have new or untapped markets can compete for talent with the top programs in the country. UConn and UMass both reside in big, wealthy markets that are very attractive to advertisers. It is very realistic that players at those two schools can attract big time talent that will get paid very, very well. Paige Bueckers and Azzi Fudd are about to prove that. If you are a 4* cornerback from Florida, do you want to go to FSU or UF where you can ride the bench and maybe get on the field in your 4th or 5th year if you are lucky, making maybe $25k a year along the way, if that, or go to UConn or UMass where you will be a 4 year starter, earning $100k+ a season for 4 years?

Anyone who says kids will go to the major programs to sit on the bench with the hope of playing their senior year when they could be making 3-4x that starting at a lower tier program is an idiot.

If I were the Big 10, I would add Kansas, UConn, UMass and maybe OSU or WVU, offering $10MM a year at first, and putting them all on an earn-in program where they have to show that they are additive on a revenue basis before they get full shares, if they ever get full shares. On some level, put them on an earn-in, performance based revenue split and tell them it will be revisited in 10 years. 10 years is an eternity, but the Big 10 needs to broaden its footprint now.
 
.-.
ecasadoSBU said:
Someone here said no program would wait four years to leave a conference. Its looking like he was dead wrong. lol
Expand ...

Yeah, I'd bet something of value that Texas and Oklahoma are in SEC before 2025 season.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The Big 10 needs to get bigger to diversify away its exposure to Ohio State and Michigan leaving,
Expand ...

That's like saying I need to diversify away from my heart so I'm not so dependent on it for life.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Alston would have revolutionized recruiting if everything had stayed the same. The blatant cheating schools like Auburn and Alabama had a massive advantage in a world where other schools were not cheating or just pushing the envelope on the edges. Now, everyone can pay their players, and literally any school can compete for top talent if it has a good marketing department. It is no longer about selling tickets or tradition, it is about turning high profile athletes into spokespeople, even on a local level, and then monetizing that in real time.

It is important to note that the ruling does not allow schools to pay players directly, it just says that the schools can not stop them from making additional income on their name, image and likeness. The schools still have a standing agreement between themselves to not pay players, for what that is worth.

What brand business isn't looking at a massive school like UCF and wondering how do we get more access to that customer base? One thing is for certain in this new environment, you got to play to get paid. The days of 5*s sitting on the bench for 3 years with the hope of playing their junior or senior year are OVER. It will be much more difficult for schools to stockpile talent, because recruits are leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table by not playing. It appears that a lot of the blue blood football schools reached this exact conclusion as Alston was working its way to the Supreme Court, because now we have the Super-SEC. The SEC is making a power play to wipe out its competition under the old recruiting model before their competitive advantage evaporates under the new recruiting model.

In a world where advertising and brands dominate, schools that have new or untapped markets can compete for talent with the top programs in the country. UConn and UMass both reside in big, wealthy markets that are very attractive to advertisers. It is very realistic that players at those two schools can attract big time talent that will get paid very, very well. Paige Bueckers and Azzi Fudd are about to prove that. If you are a 4* cornerback from Florida, do you want to go to FSU or UF where you can ride the bench and maybe get on the field in your 4th or 5th year if you are lucky, making maybe $25k a year along the way, if that, or go to UConn or UMass where you will be a 4 year starter, earning $100k+ a season for 4 years?

Anyone who says kids will go to the major programs to sit on the bench with the hope of playing their senior year when they could be making 3-4x that starting at a lower tier program is an idiot.

If I were the Big 10, I would add Kansas, UConn, UMass and maybe OSU or WVU, offering $10MM a year at first, and putting them all on an earn-in program where they have to show that they are additive on a revenue basis before they get full shares, if they ever get full shares. On some level, put them on an earn-in, performance based revenue split and tell them it will be revisited in 10 years. 10 years is an eternity, but the Big 10 needs to broaden its footprint now.
Expand ...

I'm not entirely sure how the Big12 can't backfill with the AAC/MWC leftovers at 8 teams, but the big ten at 14 teams should add 4 teams from the Big12/Indy ranks.

UConn and UMass football tv deals combine for like $1M annually.. and the big ten needs to subsidize us and them to the tune of $20M?
 
huskymedic said:
If the aforementioned TV consultants are correct in their estimate that Oklahoma and Texas generated 50 percent of that value, then the Left-Behind 8 would expect to see that number drop to $12 million per school.
Expand ...
in other words, still more than the AAC pays out per school.
 
hoopsfan22 said:
Also the B1G has put a lot of its eggs in the rust belt and farm country. Probably best to diversify given population trends.
Expand ...
People; why did the B1G add Rutgers?? Maryland?? Wth?? Rutgers sucks at everything!

Same people; the B1G needs to diversify. Too many Midwestern farms.

There are only so many options. Aside from OU/TX (and Notre Dame), the next two schools the B1G would like would be UVA & UNC, but that’s not happening. UMass? Seriously?

This is why, IMO, Kansas is an easy #15. Contiguous, AAU status and basketball blueblood = academics & national brand. Those are very rare. Football sucks but oh well. Who else is there?? #16+ is the big question (((imo))).

UConn makes sense as well in many ways. Contiguous, elite basketball brand, more eastern expansion. AAU might be the problem.
 
The guy who could have helped us get into AAU is Tom Katsouleas. But unfortunately, he is no longer president.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,328
Messages
4,564,226
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom