Yet conference networks mean that schools like Rutgers and Maryland are valued more than schools from tiny states like Oklahoma. It is all about state populations and the $1 more a TV set that the SEC gets for states that have an SEC school in them. Maybe someday that will change but it won't be anytime soon.

If you don't understand that you don't understand conference expansion.

quote:

---

Yet conference networks mean that schools like Rutgers and Maryland are valued more than schools from tiny states like Oklahoma. It is all about state populations and the $1 more a TV set that the SEC gets for states that have an SEC school in them. Maybe someday that will change but it won't be anytime soon.

If you don't understand that you don't understand conference expansion.

---

Bingo!

Sorry guys, the ones that are supporting this ZeroU move to the SEC.......y'all are living in yesterday's world. The only thing that matters re: possible expansion is footprint and dollars. Not reputation. Not "helmet status". Simple math dictates that adding a school from a low market area dilutes the income and winds up being a net loser. The only people that don't understand this seem to be the Okies. And the powers that be in the BDF who seem to be hell bent on subtraction by addition.

Footprint isn't the end-all-be-all.

There's this thing called "Tier 1" that's based on actual ratings, not footprint.

It's how Nebraska had value for the BigTen. They certainly didn't bring a footprint.

Conversely, even if a school brings a "footprint," if it waters down the competitiveness of the league, then the rates the league networks can bargain drop. This is why teams like USF will never have value for a Power5 conference.

Footprint is an important component. It let us bring instant value to the SEC, since they're still locked into a horrific Tier 1 deal. But I'd bet a Coke we'll actually bring more long term value on the Tier 1 market, not in adding TX to the SECN, especially when cord cutting means that actual fanbase size (and therefore more clicks on streaming content) is more important than "footprint."

Bottom line: OU brings enough Tier 1 value to make them viable. Okie lite does not. If the two are tied together, it's not happening. If it's OU and KU, or OU and an ACC team, I could see it happening. But I don't think anything is happening until we're much closer to the SEC's renegotiation of Tier 1 rights.

If it's markets only please explain Nebraska's value to the BigTen? They brought little for BTN, which is why the BigTen staggered their payouts. Nebraska's value will come when the BigTen's Tier 1 gets renegotiated in 2017.

OU and Kansas are in the same boat. As is Alabama for that matter. Every slack-jawed yokel in those unpopulated states loves those schools. When they move elsewhere they still love those schools. OUs ratings are the best in the Big12. Their TV deal blows, so their ratings overall don't look great, but that's due to getting horrible national time slots and no national viewers due to crappy Big12 matchups.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this move to happen, and I doubt it will, but it's silly to think OU doesn't have value.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Footprint isn't the end-all-be-all.

There's this thing called "Tier 1" that's based on actual ratings, not footprint.

It's how Nebraska had value for the BigTen. They certainly didn't bring a footprint.

Conversely, even if a school brings a "footprint," if it waters down the competitiveness of the league, then the rates the league networks can bargain drop. This is why teams like USF will never have value for a Power5 conference.

Footprint is an important component. It let us bring instant value to the SEC, since they're still locked into a horrific Tier 1 deal. But I'd bet a Coke we'll actually bring more long term value on the Tier 1 market, not in adding TX to the SECN, especially when cord cutting means that actual fanbase size (and therefore more clicks on streaming content) is more important than "footprint."

Bottom line: OU brings enough Tier 1 value to make them viable. Okie lite does not. If the two are tied together, it's not happening. If it's OU and KU, or OU and an ACC team, I could see it happening. But I don't think anything is happening until we're much closer to the SEC's renegotiation of Tier 1 rights.

---

No.

What makes you think the SEC wants expansion westward?

SEC: " what if we brought in OU and Kansas?"

Madison Avenue " we want value. Eyes bring value. Households bring value. OU has 3 million tops population in markets we already have. Kansas, more corn than people. We want households."

It is TV markets only. Follow the money. TV market rankings of the 35th and 42nd markets do not attract Madison Avenue. If it did OU's tier 3 payments would be huge. They're not. OU is ok for Oklahoma. Neither Oklahoma school brings nothing to the table, other than another mouth to feed.

It is a moot point to even talk ACC, none of their schools are going any where.

Neither are any Big 12 schools.

Roll Tide

---

Yea, nothing like Birmingham or Jackson!

quote:

---

quote:

---

OU would be better off, but the SEC wouldn't. End of story.

---

Only OU would benefit monetarily from this, the rest of the SEC would not. Nor would our TV partners.

And OU in the SEC West would mean Auburn gets sent East. That is not going to happen.

---

Games between OU and the Blue Bloods of the SEC (Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU) would send TV rating skyrocketing. Maybe OU doesn't brink a lot of tv sets to the party, but when they play these teams on a regular basis, the TV rating will skyrocket.

quote:

---

If it's markets only please explain Nebraska's value to the BigTen? They brought little for BTN, which is why the BigTen staggered their payouts. Nebraska's value will come when the BigTen's Tier 1 gets renegotiated in 2017.

OU and Kansas are in the same boat. As is Alabama for that matter. Every slack-jawed yokel in those unpopulated states loves those schools. When they move elsewhere they still love those schools. OUs ratings are the best in the Big12. Their TV deal blows, so their ratings overall don't look great, but that's due to getting horrible national time slots and no national viewers due to crappy Big12 matchups.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this move to happen, and I doubt it will, but it's silly to think OU doesn't have value.

---

I actually think Nebraska was a different animal altogether. Things went south (literally and figuratively) in a hurry the moment the Big XII was formed. Osborne and Dodds butted heads the entire time. Then Harvey Perlman became Chancellor at Nebraska a few years after the league formed. He was looking for an exit strategy for a long time and cultivated ties to the B1G towards that end.

Personal relationships helped get Nebraska into the B1G.

Same way Loftin and Machen (Florida) were seated next to each other at AAU meetings and became close friends. Machen was A&M's biggest champion within the SEC and helped get everybody else on board.

quote:

---

If it's markets only please explain Nebraska's value to the BigTen? They brought little for BTN, which is why the BigTen staggered their payouts. Nebraska's value will come when the BigTen's Tier 1 gets renegotiated in 2017.

OU and Kansas are in the same boat. As is Alabama for that matter. Every slack-jawed yokel in those unpopulated states loves those schools. When they move elsewhere they still love those schools. OUs ratings are the best in the Big12. Their TV deal blows, so their ratings overall don't look great, but that's due to getting horrible national time slots and no national viewers due to crappy Big12 matchups.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this move to happen, and I doubt it will, but it's silly to think OU doesn't have value.

---

Nebraska was added in 2010, before the landscaped had really shifted. Looking back now I'd bet the Big 10 would much rather have added Missouri, especially after Nebraska was booted from the AAU.

quote:

---

If it's markets only please explain Nebraska's value to the BigTen? They brought little for BTN, which is why the BigTen staggered their payouts. Nebraska's value will come when the BigTen's Tier 1 gets renegotiated in 2017.

OU and Kansas are in the same boat. As is Alabama for that matter. Every slack-jawed yokel in those unpopulated states loves those schools. When they move elsewhere they still love those schools. OUs ratings are the best in the Big12. Their TV deal blows, so their ratings overall don't look great, but that's due to getting horrible national time slots and no national viewers due to crappy Big12 matchups.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this move to happen, and I doubt it will, but it's silly to think OU doesn't have value.

---

Nebraska or Missouri were going to be added to the B1G to offset the addition of Penn State. Both were AAU qualified at that time. B1G staggered payouts are the norm for new additions. Penn State went through the staggered payout, same for Nebraska.

Shows how much Nebraska wanted out of the Big 12 to leave money on the table.

Hindsight is great to have. Nobody expected conference networks in a great partnership with strong carriages were going to explode. That is why the SEC offered expansion to Texas A&M and Missouri, we believed correctly now that these schools would offer way more than a football pedigree.

The B1G contract has been done. Nebraska stands to make $45 million a year as a full member.

As to pissing on Alabama's foot and telling us it's raining. Remember Alabama was and is an ardent supporter of Texas A&M and Missouri to the conference. You do not need to denigrate us as a fellow conference member. We aren't Texas. We may speak slow and with a drawl, but we do think rather fast and aren't the bumpkins you think we are.

I expect more class from Aggies.

If not, I guess I need to just go back to the Bama board.

Roll Tide

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Footprint isn't the end-all-be-all.

There's this thing called "Tier 1" that's based on actual ratings, not footprint.

It's how Nebraska had value for the BigTen. They certainly didn't bring a footprint.

Conversely, even if a school brings a "footprint," if it waters down the competitiveness of the league, then the rates the league networks can bargain drop. This is why teams like USF will never have value for a Power5 conference.

Footprint is an important component. It let us bring instant value to the SEC, since they're still locked into a horrific Tier 1 deal. But I'd bet a Coke we'll actually bring more long term value on the Tier 1 market, not in adding TX to the SECN, especially when cord cutting means that actual fanbase size (and therefore more clicks on streaming content) is more important than "footprint."

Bottom line: OU brings enough Tier 1 value to make them viable. Okie lite does not. If the two are tied together, it's not happening. If it's OU and KU, or OU and an ACC team, I could see it happening. But I don't think anything is happening until we're much closer to the SEC's renegotiation of Tier 1 rights.

---

No.

What makes you think the SEC wants expansion westward?

SEC: " what if we brought in OU and Kansas?"

Madison Avenue " we want value. Eyes bring value. Households bring value. OU has 3 million tops population in markets we already have. Kansas, more corn than people. We want households."

It is TV markets only. Follow the money. TV market rankings of the 35th and 42nd markets do not attract Madison Avenue. If it did OU's tier 3 payments would be huge. They're not. OU is ok for Oklahoma. Neither Oklahoma school brings nothing to the table, other than another mouth to feed.

It is a moot point to even talk ACC, none of their schools are going any where.

Neither are any Big 12 schools.

Roll Tide

---

Yea, nothing like Birmingham or Jackson!

---

So Alabama is now to be looked down upon?

Really?

We support Texas A&M when we offer Texas A&M a home from an abusive conference and you want to dis the conference?

Unreal.

Roll Tide

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

OU would be better off, but the SEC wouldn't. End of story.

---

Only OU would benefit monetarily from this, the rest of the SEC would not. Nor would our TV partners.

And OU in the SEC West would mean Auburn gets sent East. That is not going to happen.

---

Games between OU and the Blue Bloods of the SEC (Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU) would send TV rating skyrocketing. Maybe OU doesn't brink a lot of tv sets to the party, but when they play these teams on a regular basis, the TV rating will skyrocket.

---

Perhaps,

We already have the traditions and the rivalries. We don't need a Big 12 section of the SEC.

Texas A&M would really want two more schools from a dying conference as division rivals? Then why accept a SEC invite? Why not stay in the Big 12?

Every post that touts adding Big 12 schools makes other SEC schools wonder why?

Roll Tide

The Grants of Rights haven't been tested but on the surface seem to do a good job of locking schools to the conference at the expense of not just forfeiting media and other conference revenue but also via control of broadcast rights of home games and therefore revenue. Tremendous risk of losing a base of 30 million for OU for each year left in the GOR.

I would therefore read OU as negotiating to control some of their own destiny with the things that are being said more than jonesing to leave. Their value within the Big 12-2-2+1+1+??? has not been improving in spite of the fact that the more equal sharing of revenue has improved the competition. And they have faltered on things that would help like stadium expansions and the execution of a more helpful tier 3 deal (Fox broadcasts their tier 3 inline with the Fox regionals that are nearby. I think they make in the mid single digits though it might be as high as 8 million but that might be all licensing rights and we have already seen how the equipment licensing appears to be bigger because of using retail pricing to describe the value.)

And keep in mind that cord cutting is severely hampering ESPN especially. There is every reason to believe all of their subscription dollars are already committed and they're about to be limited on ad growth by subscription decrease.

Junction, stop acting like the SEC did A&M a magnanimous favor.

You know better than that.

quote:

---

Stop acting like the SEC did A&M a magnanimous favor.

You know better than that.

---

Never said that.

I expect Aggies to be classy, you don't?

Roll Tide.

Here's an article that explains how the Nebraska to the B1G was worked out and why.

Some tid-bits:

quote:

---

Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were all given six-year terms to transition to a full Big Ten share. Payments from the league were then set at what the schools were projected to receive from their old leagues during those years at the time of negotiations 2010 for Nebraska and 2013 for Maryland and Rutgers.

Nebraska's $14 million payment during 2011-12, its first in the Big Ten, was based on what it had been expected to receive from the Big 12 in that year.

Likewise, Maryland's $24.5 million base payment for 2014-15 was based on what it was projected to receive from the ACC that year.

Rutgers was coming out of the lower-tier American Athletic Conference, the reason for its low-ball Big Ten payment. The school did not release its first-year payment figure last week, but Traviolia put it at about $10 million.

Public documents show Nebraska's payments have gradually ramped up: to $15.4 million in year two, then $16.9 million, $18.7 million and about $22 million for the current year.
Those transition-year payments were not adjusted even though, as it turned out, Big 12 members have actually received larger payments than were projected back in 2010.

---

quote:

---

And University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman said he does not believe his school is being treated unfairly. The differences, he said, can be traced to the disparate positions the schools were in at the time they negotiated their entries into the league.

In 2010, Nebraska was fleeing a Big 12 that appeared to be imploding, he said. Conversely, Maryland in 2013 was being actively courted by the Big Ten, which was eager to get into the Eastern television markets that Maryland and Rutgers represented.

"There was a considerable difference in negotiating leverage between Nebraska and Maryland," Perlman said. "While we brought a better athletic reputation, they brought considerably more financial opportunity for the conference opportunity that Nebraska will share in the years ahead."
Indeed, Nebraska is now well on its way to a B1G payday.

---

LINK

let us worry about SEC worthy teams and less SEC expansion!

quote:

---

Yet conference networks mean that schools like Rutgers and Maryland are valued more than schools from tiny states like Oklahoma. It is all about state populations and the $1 more a TV set that the SEC gets for states that have an SEC school in them. Maybe someday that will change but it won't be anytime soon.

If you don't understand that you don't understand conference expansion.

---

Except that's not really how it works---go to the largest state you don't have a team in and add a school, any school.

Missouri is closer to Oklahoma in population than it is, say, Virginia or North Carolina.

Where's the SEC take? Missouri, rather than the not as well-followed, well-established programs in those other much more populated states.

I joked earlier in this thread about the schools in those large states that have FBS football teams, would drop their small conference in a flash to join the SEC, yet that's not what is going to happen, is it? We're not going to add UNC-Charlotte, are we?

State population is a nice starting point. But it's hardly how realignment works.

Do you think OU would agree to a smaller share of the SECN profit based upon their subscriber contributions?

Add UH and ECU.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Stop acting like the SEC did A&M a magnanimous favor.

You know better than that.

---

Never said that.

I expect Aggies to be classy, you don't?

Roll Tide.

---

Oh, come on. You've basically told us that we're here by the good graces of Alabama and some other schools feeling bad about us, because deep down, the SEC doesn't really want anything to do with former/current Big 12 schools.


And the poster wasn't dissing Birmingham and Jackson, really. Just responding to the claims that OU and their nearby population centers are, well, larger than what most SEC schools actually bring to the table.

Maybe we should kick out some of the schools in Alabama and Mississippi. Duplicative coverage of small populations.

quote:

---

Nebraska was added in 2010, before the landscaped had really shifted. Looking back now I'd bet the Big 10 would much rather have added Missouri, especially after Nebraska was booted from the AAU.

---

Things are going so well for Missouri...

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Stop acting like the SEC did A&M a magnanimous favor.

You know better than that.

---

Never said that.

I expect Aggies to be classy, you don't?

Roll Tide.

---

Oh, come on. You've basically told us that we're here by the good graces of Alabama and some other schools feeling bad about us, because deep down, the SEC doesn't really want anything to do with former/current Big 12 schools.

---

No

I stated that Alabama supported Texas A&M and Missouri becoming conference members. You know, a conference member. The SEC saw opportunity with the chaos in the Big 12. We believe we have the correct schools. We saw an opportunity to build the conference into a better overall conference.

We were already well on our way with the SEC network, Texas A&M and Missouri paid their own way from day one by providing valued TV markets. We appreciate what Texas A&M and Missouri bring to the table.

You also need to know that the admission for membership was unamious with one abstention (Vanderbilt).

What the SEC asks is that conference members act like adults, not like callers to the Paul Finebaum show.

One aspect is that expansion has to make sense, adding OU and Kansas just because people think they are sexy additions is not living in the real world. You have to think of the conference as a whole.

OU and Kansas bring nothing to the SEC that the conference already has.

Answer one question honestly. Would Texas A&M really want to dilute conference shares just to add two schools that do not add monetary value to the conference?

Roll Tide

I've talked about OU already, no need to repeat it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it's markets only please explain Nebraska's value to the BigTen? They brought little for BTN, which is why the BigTen staggered their payouts. Nebraska's value will come when the BigTen's Tier 1 gets renegotiated in 2017.

OU and Kansas are in the same boat. As is Alabama for that matter. Every slack-jawed yokel in those unpopulated states loves those schools. When they move elsewhere they still love those schools. OUs ratings are the best in the Big12. Their TV deal blows, so their ratings overall don't look great, but that's due to getting horrible national time slots and no national viewers due to crappy Big12 matchups.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want this move to happen, and I doubt it will, but it's silly to think OU doesn't have value.

---

I actually think Nebraska was a different animal altogether. Things went south (literally and figuratively) in a hurry the moment the Big XII was formed. Osborne and Dodds butted heads the entire time. Then Harvey Perlman became Chancellor at Nebraska a few years after the league formed. He was looking for an exit strategy for a long time and cultivated ties to the B1G towards that end.

Personal relationships helped get Nebraska into the B1G.

Same way Loftin and Machen (Florida) were seated next to each other at AAU meetings and became close friends. Machen was A&M's biggest champion within the SEC and helped get everybody else on board.

---

Whatever story fits your way of thinking, right?

quote:

---

I think this would be a really good thing...



SEC West
1) A&M
2) OU
3) KU
4) MU
5) ARK
6) LSU
7) Miss
8) Miss St

SEC East
1) Bama
2) Auburn
3) UK
4) Vandy
5) UT
6) GA
7) SCar
8) UF

It may not make short term money sense, but it might make LONG term money sense as it will facilitate the death of the Big 12.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yet conference networks mean that schools like Rutgers and Maryland are valued more than schools from tiny states like Oklahoma. It is all about state populations and the $1 more a TV set that the SEC gets for states that have an SEC school in them. Maybe someday that will change but it won't be anytime soon.

If you don't understand that you don't understand conference expansion.

---

Except that's not really how it works---go to the largest state you don't have a team in and add a school, any school.

Missouri is closer to Oklahoma in population than it is, say, Virginia or North Carolina.

Where's the SEC take? Missouri, rather than the not as well-followed, well-established programs in those uother much more populated states.

I joked earlier in this thread about the schools in those large states that have FBS football teams, would drop their small conference in a flash to join the SEC, yet that's not what is going to happen, is it? We're not going to add UNC-Charlotte, are we?

State population is a nice starting point. But it's hardly how realignment works.

---

Again, Missouri brought the Kansas City and Saint Louis TV markets.

OU brings nothing. Try to be classy and not the stereotypical Aggie that 99% of Texas A&M abhors.

Roll Tide

quote:

---

Whatever story fits your way of thinking, right?

---

LOL. You are a hoot wesag.

It seems like the pertinent questions are:

1. If (and this is a big "if") expansion to 16 schools is inevitable, which two institutions would the SEC add?

2. Based on generally assumed criteria, an ACC university from North Carolina and another from Virginia would appear to be prime candidates for the SEC, but is poaching from the ACC an actual possibility?

3. If poaching from the ACC is not a possibility, then which schools would be among the viable candidates for SEC expansion?

ACC is dead. With the advent of the ACC network, their members are bound by the GOR signed by each institution.

The B1G and the SEC are fine right now at 14 institutions each.

Expansion has to make monetary sense to each conference.

There aren't any schools that make sense to the B1G. OU is not an AAU institution. Kansas and Iowa State are AAU, but no TV markets. Why spend money that doesn't bring a monetary return. The B1G already has the Texas TV markets and recruits.

Same with the SEC.

The Big 12 is dying.

Roll Tide.

I agree.

But hypothetically, if expansion to 16 teams is inevitable, even if it's several years from now, who would the SEC target?

An aside regarding in-footprint population with a source for the comment:

"Adding Missouri and Texas -- a combined population of 31 million -- would move the SEC's population footprint in its states from 50 million to 81 million."

Now compare that to 3.5 million.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-expansion-to-14-goal-its-own-network-092811

quote:

---

Again, Missouri brought the Kansas City and Saint Louis TV markets.

OU brings nothing. Try to be classy and not the stereotypical Aggie that 99% of Texas A&M abhors.

Roll Tide

---

Someone is "not classy" because you don't 100% agree with them. So, let's drop that one.

Nor does it mean they haven't been honestly speaking.

Again, Missouri's population of 6 million is closer to Oklahoma's of 4 million than it is many states surrounding the SEC. So, also, let's drop in that regard that Missouri is TV paradise. It's an average state.

But ultimately, you can't argue with the TV ratings, and OU is was one of the giants of the old Big 12 and outperformed Missouri just as OU outperformed most of the conference.

And OU is still a big TV draw, and it's just what it is.

I'm sure there are many factors at play---Oklahoma is a state with one top level professional sports team (NBA) and is a college football crazed state. Missouri, for example, perhaps not so much.

Perhaps part of is that OU has a strong following in North Texas while Missouri does not have that.

That OU is historically and at present the more successful football and overall athletic department than Missouri probably plays a role, too, in Oklahoma's ability to draw TV viewership.

The ultimate goal is to draw viewership across the country, and consistently excellent athletic programs like Oklahoma do that. They have rabid fans at home, and they attract national interest. Most notably and certainly most importantly in football, but also they are very capable in basketball (both genders), and many of the sports the SEC and the SEC Network do put some value in (softball, most notably).

(I'll reemphasize before anyone gets riled up about mentioning a women's sport---obviously football is the driver behind decisions.)

quote:

---

An aside regarding in-footprint population with a source for the comment:

"Adding Missouri and Texas -- a combined population of 31 million -- would move the SEC's population footprint in its states from 50 million to 81 million."

Now compare that to 3.5 million.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-expansion-to-14-goal-its-own-network-092811

---

Missouri contributed less than 1/5 of that 31 million.

That was good wordplay and making Missouri feel equal to A&M and not second fiddle.

And I'll say this again:

Am I saying I expect OU to join the SEC, at least any time soon? No, I'm not saying that.