But even so from a purely financial standpoint UNC Charlotte does make more sense than OU. It's just economic reality.

But if those are your only two options you just stand pat at 14. There's no impetus for change. It's not the responsibility of the SEC to take on charity case OU.

quote:

---

One is an existing power 5 school and one isn't.

---

Ah, so Rutgers wasn't more valuable than Oklahoma?

quote:

---

quote:

---

One is an existing power 5 school and one isn't.

---

Ah, so Rutgers wasn't more valuable than Oklahoma?

---

Delany and the media partners thought so. Think about that. Rutgers is more desirable to the the B1G than Oklahoma.

It is what it is. Oklahoma has no home other than the Big XII.

Rutgers had come from the big east which at the time was a BCS auto bid conference.

quote:

---

But even so from a purely financial standpoint UNC Charlotte does make more sense than OU. It's just economic reality

---

Ah, so if you had X dollars to make a long term investment in the SEC or Conferemce-USA, you'd take C-USA?

They have almost the same footprint as the SEC but more teams in larger states, you know?!

quote:

---

Rutgers had come from the big east which at the time was a BCS auto bid conference.

---

Texhnically, they came from the American Conference. The Big East had already fallen apart because it turns out automatic bid and all no one gave damn about watching South Florida play Syracuse in football.

Now you're just reaching.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Rutgers had come from the big east which at the time was a BCS auto bid conference.

---

Texhnically, they came from the American Conference. The Big East had already fallen apart because it turns out automatic bid and all no one gave damn about watching South Florida play Syracuse in football.

---

I know that but they had been in the Big East for ages.

Why did the Big 10 pursue Rutgers and not OU?

quote:

---

Now you're just reaching.

---

With what?

You told me the Carlotte 49ers were financially more valuable than Oklahpma, so I want to know why I shouldn't think C-USA with more schools in more big, southern states is not a better long term financial investment than the SEC.

Dodging questions now?

Because Conference USA doesn't have an existing massive network deal in place that pays for teams based on market share.

Is that the obvious answer you need?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Rutgers had come from the big east which at the time was a BCS auto bid conference.

---

Texhnically, they came from the American Conference. The Big East had already fallen apart because it turns out automatic bid and all no one gave damn about watching South Florida play Syracuse in football.

---

I know that but they had been in the Big East for ages.

Why did the Big 10 pursue Rutgers and not OU?

---

Rutgers was in the Big East since 1995. Amd then they were in the cast to watch it collapse after Miami, VaTech, and the schools that matters bailed.


Why'd the SEC pursue Missouri and not Rutgers?

Why'd the ACC pursue Louisville and not Rutgers? Or prefer Syracuse? Pittsburgh? Norte Dame?

The Big 10 looked east due to their existing strengths, growing areas of competition, while keep geographic continuity.

The Big Ten's traditional strength was the Midwest while the ACC was making a strong push to take over Big Ten's eastern division footprint that the conference wanted to grow.

Population played a part in both conferences looking to add in the north east, for sure. You do know I never said the SEC shouldn't add a team in say, North Carolina, right?

But remember, adding Rutgers was a well-documented bet for which we are still awaiting the outcome.

quote:

---

Because Conference USA doesn't have an existing massive network deal in place that pays for teams based on market share.

Is that the obvious answer you need?

---

Why does the SEC have the massive network deal in place and not Conference USA?

In other words, if financial worth is defined by your local/state population, as you said it was, then why is the SEC's financial deal so incredible more massive than Conference USA's?

Again, you told me UNC-Charlotte is worth more than Oklahoma. You told me Rutgers is worth more than Oklahoma.

So it seems to follow that the Charlotte 49ers are worth more than Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State and Ole Miss?

Is that correct? You think Charlotte is worth more financially than each of those schools?

The financial worth of market share/population is defined by the sec network deal. That's the part you keep forgetting. I didn't make the rules, ESPN/SEC did. I'm applying it to the world as it is. You're pretending everything exists in a vacuum.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Rutgers had come from the big east which at the time was a BCS auto bid conference.

---

Texhnically, they came from the American Conference. The Big East had already fallen apart because it turns out automatic bid and all no one gave damn about watching South Florida play Syracuse in football.

---

I know that but they had been in the Big East for ages.

Why did the Big 10 pursue Rutgers and not OU?

---

Rutgers was in the Big East since 1995. Amd then they were in the cast to watch it collapse after Miami, VaTech, and the schools that matters bailed.


Why'd the SEC pursue Missouri and not Rutgers?

Why'd the ACC pursue Louisville and not Rutgers? Or prefer Syracuse? Pittsburgh? Norte Dame?

The Big 10 looked east due to their existing strengths, growing areas of competition, while keep geographic continuity.

The Big Ten's traditional strength was the Midwest while the ACC was making a strong push to take over Big Ten's eastern division footprint that the conference wanted to grow.

Population played a part in both conferences looking to add in the north east, for sure. You do know I never said the SEC shouldn't add a team in say, North Carolina, right?

But remember, adding Rutgers was a well-documented bet for which we are still awaiting the outcome.

---

The answer to your questions exist in the network deals as they are constructed. The Acc had to chase ratings. The Big 10 did not.

quote:

---

The financial worth of market share/population is defined by the sec network deal. That's the part you keep forgetting. I didn't make the rules, ESPN/SEC did. I'm applying it to the world as it is. You're pretending everything exists in a vacuum.

---

I added this to the above post, so just to make sure you see it and answer it:

You told me UNC-Charlotte is worth more than Oklahoma.

So it seems to follow that the Charlotte 49ers are worth more than Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State and Ole Miss?

Is that correct? You think Charlotte is worth more financially than each of those schools?


Like each of those, Oklahoma is part of a power conference. Oklahoma's conference has a better TV deal. Oklahoma is in a smaller state.

Yet, it seems you're telling me that those schools are worth more than Charlotte while you just told me Charlotte is worth more than Oklahoma.

Do you finally get it? Your surely dizzy by all the circles of contradictions you've walked.


And no. I clearly don't think everything happens in a vacuum.

OU isn't getting into the SEC

quote:

---

The answer to your questions exist in the network deals as they are constructed. The Acc had to chase ratings. The Big 10 did not.

---

Clearly, we're talking about why the network deals are constructed the way they are.

Why do you think the Big 10 took Rutgers?

Why they exist isn't important anymore. They do and we have to live by the rules they created. Your Crimson and cream Sooners are **** out of luck

quote:

---

Why they exist isn't important anymore. They do and we have to live by the rules they created. Your Crimson and cream Sooners are **** out of luck

---

The SEC deal says the SEC can't expand?

Sure they can. And they are paid by carriage fees in new markets. Is this new to you?

quote:

---

Sure they can. And they are paid by carriage fees in new markets. Is this new to you?

---

Oklahoma wouldn't be a new market? That's...new.

So, if you had your choice between Notre Dame and Charlotte, you'd choose Charlotte?

Yes, it would be a new ****ty one that would add nothing to the pie. Especially when compared to a North Carolina and Virginia. But the better option at this time to not expand at all.

With the current network deals in place it costs money for the SEC to add OU.

IlovetheBig12Ag2011 losing another argument

Shocker

quote:

---

So, if you had your choice between Notre Dame and Charlotte, you'd choose Charlotte?

---

No, I'd choose notre dame because ND is the one and only school in the county that has a national following.

They are the one exception and hence their NBC deal.

quote:

---

IlovetheBig12Ag2011 losing another argument

Shocker

---

I know right

So, I said multiple times I'm not saying OU to the SEC anytime soon if ever, so we can agree there.


You're saying Disney/ESPN would pay the SEC more if they added UNC Charlotte rather than Michigan?

Lets say they had the hypothetical choice to swap an existing team with Charlotte, or East Carolina. Or Old Dominion (they're in Virginia, just so you know.)...

You think Disney would pay the SEC more if they swapped for one of those teams over Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Missouri, and Kentucky?

quote:

---

IlovetheBig12Ag2011 losing another argument

Shocker

---

You'd rather the SEC add Old Dominion or Charlotte than Michigan?

It doesn't matter what I or anyone says. ABC/ESPN is contractually bound to pay the SEC the additional carriage rate in new markets. Under those terms the mouse would have to pay the SEC just as much for UNC Charlotte as they would Michigan. That's the contract. If you don't like it change it.

You'd rather us go back to the big 12

quote:

---

quote:

---

IlovetheBig12Ag2011 losing another argument

Shocker

---

You'd rather the SEC add Old Dominion or Charlotte than Michigan?

---

He, like myself, would probably prefer they add neither. Adding no one is currently the best option of all.

Lets go big. Lets go to California.

You think the SEC would make more money by adding San Jose State rather than Ohio State? Michigan? Florida State? North Carolina?

quote:

---

Lets go big. Lets go to California.

You think the SEC would make more money by adding San Jose State rather than Ohio State? Michigan? Florida State? North Carolina?

---

Yes they would. That's how the contract is written. I'm starting to think this really is new for you.

So, expansion is not about the next handful of years, its about the long-term and, financially, primarily about value of more substaintilly re-negotiated contracts, whether new or extended after those substantial negotiations.

And no, its not new to me. And no, an amendment of the payout of the contract is not based solely on local and state population. Disney was not so daft as to do that.

It would be great if it was. I'd have suggested the SEC sign up San Jose State yesterday. Easy money.


(I'm curios why you think Rutgers and other schools added to the Big 10 didn't become full fledged revenue sharing members immediately.)

So your answer is "the contract can't be that so I'm just going to pretend it isn't"