el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

Well, tu will bring more new Texas TVs to the SEC than they are currently getting with A&M at the moment. If you don't see that, then you're maroon colored glasses are filtering out all the green.

You nailed it perfectly. People in a random bar in NYC would much rather watch Bama vs Florida instead of Buffalo and Rutgers.

My thought is who cares if this is happening because college football has already been ruined with NIL and the transfer portal (free agency). It's all messed up and this is just another piece of crap to throw on the pile.

AngryAG said:

---

Agvet12 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

By the way, Mizzou is 100% excited about this. This is great for them.

They are a fish out of water in the East. Under the proposal they will be moved to the West. So they will now get to play us, Arkansas. OU and UT every year. That is so much better for them. And for their recruiting.

---

Adding 2 east teams pushes them west and they hate sips and have already said no

---

Mizzou is a yes. 100%. They want to play games in Texas for recruiting.

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

AvidAggie said:

---

Agvet12 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

By the way, Mizzou is 100% excited about this. This is great for them.

They are a fish out of water in the East. Under the proposal they will be moved to the West. So they will now get to play us, Arkansas. OU and UT every year. That is so much better for them. And for their recruiting.

---

Adding 2 east teams pushes them west and they hate sips and have already said no

---

Where is the source that they already said no?

---

Google

It is being widely reported that A&M and Missouri are hard no's

---

I hope so. Hope there are at least two more where that come from.

Texas in this conference would be like inviting Justin Bieber to a George Strait concert.

They don't fit in. They never will fit in.

Jbob04 said:

---

Two popular blue blood teams will bring plenty of eyeballs. Also I would bet the LHN will go away and that money will roll into the pot to sweeten the money deal. It's happening unfortunately.

---

I tend to agree. Oklahoma has won seven national championships and Texas has the most valuable brand in college sports. It's a chance for the conference to expand its footprint by adding two blue bloods. I doubt the SEC thinks it can afford NOT to do it.

Traces of Texas said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

Two popular blue blood teams will bring plenty of eyeballs. Also I would bet the LHN will go away and that money will roll into the pot to sweeten the money deal. It's happening unfortunately.

---

I tend to agree. Oklahoma has won seven national championships and Texas has the most valuable brand in college sports. It's a chance for the conference to expand its footprint by adding two blue bloods. I doubt the SEC thinks it can afford NOT to do it.

---

Exactly. Anyone saying the SEC is already too strong to benefit from these additions is deluding themselves.

AngryAG said:

---

The vote will be unanimous in the end. Bama and Disney will get everyone on board.

Longhorns & Sooners might wanna give this a listen 👇🏾 pic.twitter.com/Dqxw73eTcx

— David Allen (@Doc_Texas) July 22, 2021

---

no instate schools besides Auburn, Bama, Vandy and Tennessee who are original members

harge57 said:

---

How will more eyeballs equal more $? What contract will be renegotiated?

---

The TV deal with B12 (The third richest in CFB) which ESPN says it's not going to renegotiate says the current B12 will not survive. 90% of the value of that conference media rights is probably concentrated in OU and horn. They have tremendous value but that value is completely diluted by the other members of that conference. They have to go somewhere and the best geographic (and probably cultural) fit is the SEC despite horn protests otherwise.

This doesnt get leaked without there already being a deal in place.

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

Knee jerk on this currently is mostly older-gens having a re-lapse of recruiting BAS. Sooners & Longhorns are already recruiting in the same talent pools as A&M & other SEC teams.

Money & media will drive this. It is very easy to get many of these schools people are stating fear playing x or y every year on board in other ways. Boards & presidents stating a "hard no" are speaking in a current capacity which is absent actual meetings which would go on behind doors w/ NDAs to prevent legit conversation during media days. 8 teams per division also doesn't move the SEC to an all conference schedule. This last years experiment w/ it was brutal for most & they do want to get back to have their typically 5-6 non conference team paddings on a 10-12 game schedule.

History behind the moves that teams such as Colorado & Nebraska did as well as A&M & Missouri's were much more complicated & its actually surprising that the SEC one worked as painlessly as it did & stay mostly under the radar for as long as it did. Any decision reached within the next calendar year which initiated moves like this would still not be on schedule games for college football at least until the next calendar year, if not the year after.

East Dallas Ag said:

---

This doesnt get leaked without there already being a deal in place.

---

I don't know about that, but I agree it doesn't get leaked unless they are pretty far down the line and have decided there is mutual interest. No deal is in place though because the schools haven't voted on it yet

msubulldogntx said:

---

Maybe Texas will be a better neighbor in the SEC than they were in the big 12..

---

As much as I wish ill-will on both programs, do you really think this gets out if they are just "hoping" to petition the SEC for admission? No way either school opens themselves up to such a PR disaster that being turned down would be. Dont be naive, this is done.

East Dallas Ag said:

---

As much as I wish ill-will on both programs, do you really think this gets out if they are just "hoping" to petition the SEC for admission? No way either school opens themselves up to such a PR disaster that being turned down would be. Dont be naive, this is done.

---

I believe we leaked it to turn it into a PR disaster for them

Would love it, don't think thats how business is done anymore.

I think this is more about a crumbling NCAA and amassing more than just a super conference but potentially NFL Jr.

Remember SEC brethren. Once you let'm in 'horns down' is awfully awfully offensive.

East Dallas Ag said:

---

As much as I wish ill-will on both programs, do you really think this gets out if they are just "hoping" to petition the SEC for admission? No way either school opens themselves up to such a PR disaster that being turned down would be. Dont be naive, this is done.

---

I don't think they are the ones who leaked it. It came from the SEC to gauge interest from the other schools or directly from us in an attempt to derail everything

AngryAG said:

---

The vote will be unanimous in the end. Bama and Disney will get everyone on board.

Longhorns & Sooners might wanna give this a listen 👇🏾 pic.twitter.com/Dqxw73eTcx

— David Allen (@Doc_Texas) July 22, 2021

---

It'll be unanimous all right: unanimous No

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

Well, tu will bring more new Texas TVs to the SEC than they are currently getting with A&M at the moment. If you don't see that, then you're maroon colored glasses are filtering out all the green.

---

SECN is probably in just about every house in TX with cable. I doubt it will bring more NEW tvs but RATINGS for those individual games will go up. Will ratings be enough to share across all 16 teams with significant dollars? I don't know and am sure the number crunchers are in their offices figuring this out. They're not the ones on here bloviating that ou and tu will or will not add lot's of revenue

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

Bonfire1996 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

Isn't Oklahoma City about the same size as St Louis?

AvidAggie said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

Isn't Oklahoma City about the same size as St Louis?

---

Not even close

Bonfire1996 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

Mizzou brought St Louis, Kansas City, and a small footprint into Chicago

Agvet12 said:

---

AvidAggie said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

Isn't Oklahoma City about the same size as St Louis?

---

Not even close

---

Just looked it up. Oklahoma City by itself is larger the St. Louis. If you add the "metro area", St. Louis is slightly larger.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

el_guapo said:
But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Mizzou was a new state with a lot of tvs to add to the revenue pool. tu doesn't add a lot of new tv sets to the stat of Texas. Most people who have cable have the SECN. They will add eyeballs to games. But do those additional eyeballs, spread across 16 teams, add significant dollars to each team's payout. I've seen nobody here answer this because none of us are in the know on the revenue modeling.

There are 6 million people in Missouri and 4 million people in Oklahoma. It's not vastly different.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

It's not just about the in network subscription cost. It's about the actual millions of extra TV sets actually tuned into those networks and the TV ad revenue that follows.

Win At Life said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

el_guapo said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

el_guapo said:
Not sure how so many think ou and tu bring more money. Just because you have two name brands, the dollars will flow. But they don't add many more tv sets. The SECN is already in the state of TX and oklahoma is smaller than the states of Virginia and NC which could be contenders when the Superconferences happen. Those tv sets bring more money. Ou and tu can boost ratings on individual broadcasts but is that enough to offset the fact that the SEC now has to feed two more mouths?
Do new streaming services change the current equation enough to let tu and ou in?

Nobody here really knows this analysis do they? Why are we assuming they bring more money or assuming they don't?

---

Because it isn't just tv sets, it is also ratings based. Texas and OU still pull high ratings and outdraw SEC games in Texas even against big12 teams.

---

But does the math work out to large dollar increase for the ratings to offset the two extra mouths? I don't know and don't think anyone here does. We're just assuming that yes it does or no it doesn't with no facts or intelligent discussion of the numbers. That was my point

---

uh. If the math worked to add Mizzou. It sure works for Texas.

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

It's not just about the in network subscription cost. It's about the actual millions of extra TV sets actually tuned into those networks and the TV ad revenue that follows.

---

Exactly, tv markets only matter if the majority of people in those markets tune in. Yes a lot of Texans watch Aggie games, but that number would double at least if you have both A&M and tu "in network"

I dont believe Arky or Mizou have any interest in adding either team to the conference

They may want to schedule a game with them every year or enter into some sort of series

But we all know they are not folks you really want to be in a contract with.


I think the TV market is only a slight positive and doesn't overcome the other negative aspects of those 2 teams



The only real motivator, as I see it, is in the bigger national picture of conference realignment.

Do you look for geography expansion or teams with a a strong fanbase? I dunno

For sure you want schools with a football culture.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Good Lord. It mattered for Mizzou because they brought the St. Louis tv market "in network" which was huge.

What tv markets does Texas and OU bring "in network" that aren't already "in network?"

---

Win At Life said:


It's not just about the in network subscription cost. It's about the actual millions of extra TV sets actually tuned into those networks and the TV ad revenue that follows.

---

Exactly, tv markets only matter if the majority of people in those markets tune in. Yes a lot of Texans watch Aggie games, but that number would double at least if you have both A&M and tu "in network"

---

Basically, none of us dufuses on here know the numbers - if the ratings increases add significant value to add two more mouths to feed spread across 16 teams. if the tv set increase adds enough value for the extra two mouths to feed. We're all just speculating one way or the other like we know when we don't know. And if it's not significant dollars to each team, then maybe add them anyway to keep the other conferences from poaching them and gaining on the SEC dominance.So why don't we all stop bloviating like we know.

The only thing tu and OU bring to the SEC is fans used to watching games at 11 am. Earlier OU and I believe tu were complaining about the tv schedules for the upcoming season saying that they wanted better game times. Nothing says tv money power like the elite game of the year for your conference kicking off when bars haven't opened and people are still drinking mimosas and Bloody Mary's.