When we began the process to move to the SEC, did we kick it off with a bunch of leaks from un-named sources?? I may be wrong as that was 10 years ago, but I don't think we did.

Adding OU might make some sense as it brings the state of Oklahoma and the associated TV's to the table, although it isn't a huge market. WV might not be a bad addition for the east but faces the same challenges as OU (very limited TV market as well as somewhat out of the geography). What would be great would be being able to get one of the ACC schools (NC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia State would be the best targets, but doubt any would be able to leave the ACC).

As many others have pointed out, the SEC already has the Texas market for TV's. Adding Texas only dilutes what is already there. It's not like they are getting additional dollars for higher ratings once the contract is established. Higher ratings only benefits the networks as they can charge more $$ per second of advertising.

Plus don't forget there have been numerous games in recent years where A&M has pulled higher ratings/numbers in Austin than the Texas game did for the same week. Texas fans are already watching SEC football- we already have those eyes on our conference!

At the end of the day, if money is king, this doesn't make sense because it doesn't bring anything to the conference with Texas that isn't already a part of the distribution of the SEC products (meaning no additional leverage for $$$), and a modest increase at best with OU. It just adds more mouths to feed, along with a potential bad partner long term in Texas.

This sounds more like an attempt to create leverage with their current media partners more than anything.

JJxvi said:

---

This will be decided by money. Not feelings. Not politics. Not by who can gain what recruiting advantages. The vote will be yes or no from everyone based on how much the yearly revenue will go up or not. Its business.

---

First of all, saying politics will play no part is, at best, naive. And you're not naive.

Second, instead of just buying into all the assumptions, prove it: where does the magical increase in revenue come from? If t.u. and OU ALONE bring the SEC that much more value, why has the Big 12 been the dumpster fire it has been for so long and on the verge of breakup since we left? Wouldn't they be better off staying where they are and working out the split to their advantage? They would both have a much easier path to the playoff, and thus more future revenue potential.

I'm not saying it won't increase SOME revenue, but all income statements have a revenue AND expense section. So the question becomes: at what cost? And I don't just mean financial.

Where are you getting an incremental $10Mm per team from? . I ran thru the numbers . That would require OU and Texas to add 250Mm in annual revenue . That number is astronomical and unrealistic .

They'd have to add about $90mm per yr to just keep SEC payouts whole. I don't even see how that can be reached

Most people are saying this is all about money and they are right . I say Ou and tu can't add enough revenue to even keep existing conference members whole . Change my mind.

It's possible this thing is further along that we thought and the new deals were done with the knowledge OU and Texas were coming.

Salute The Marines said:

---

It's possible this thing is further along that we thought and the new deals were done with the knowledge OU and Texas were coming.

---

If so either we can't trust the SEC office again, or a whole lot of A&M officials need to be fired for doing something that is entirely against the school's self interest.

halfastros81 said:

---

Where are you getting an incremental $10Mm per team from? . I ran thru the numbers . That would require OU and Texas to add 250Mm in annual revenue . That number is astronomical and unrealistic .

They'd have to add about $90mm per yr to just keep SEC payouts whole. I don't even see how that can be reached

Most people are saying this is all about money and they are right . I say Ou and tu can't add enough revenue to even keep existing conference members whole . Change my mind.

---

They would have to bring in more than that. $91 million would have covered their distribution this year, it would probably be closer to $100 million in revenue that they would have to bring in. They would probably have to increase conference revenue by something like $278 million to actually net everyone $10 million in additional distribution.

That's before the new television contract takes affect, which should be adding $245 million in revenue. That would require them to bring in another $35 million in revenue before they start moving the needle.

I'm not qualified to say that they CAN'T make that happen, but it seems unlikely that those two teams are going to increase conference revenue by 30-40%.

Salute The Marines said:

---

It's possible this thing is further along that we thought and the new deals were done with the knowledge OU and Texas were coming.

---

Is this Texas we're talking about?

91AggieLawyer said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

This will be decided by money. Not feelings. Not politics. Not by who can gain what recruiting advantages. The vote will be yes or no from everyone based on how much the yearly revenue will go up or not. Its business.

---

First of all, saying politics will play no part is, at best, naive. And you're not naive.

Second, instead of just buying into all the assumptions, prove it: where does the magical increase in revenue come from? If t.u. and OU ALONE bring the SEC that much more value, why has the Big 12 been the dumpster fire it has been for so long and on the verge of breakup since we left? Wouldn't they be better off staying where they are and working out the split to their advantage? They would both have a much easier path to the playoff, and thus more future revenue potential.

I'm not saying it won't increase SOME revenue, but all income statements have a revenue AND expense section. So the question becomes: at what cost? And I don't just mean financial.

---

I have no idea where the money will come from. Its frankly up to Disney/ESPN to make it happen if theres going to be extra money. Im fairly certain that if there is no assurance of more money, the SEC membership is not going to be voting to add more teams just out of the generosity of their hearts. They also aren't going to turn down more money either.

Thanks for that. I knew my numbers were rough. I am not seeing the business case for this from the SEC side but maybe there's something I 'm missing.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

This will be decided by money. Not feelings. Not politics. Not by who can gain what recruiting advantages. The vote will be yes or no from everyone based on how much the yearly revenue will go up or not. Its business.

---

First of all, saying politics will play no part is, at best, naive. And you're not naive.

Second, instead of just buying into all the assumptions, prove it: where does the magical increase in revenue come from? If t.u. and OU ALONE bring the SEC that much more value, why has the Big 12 been the dumpster fire it has been for so long and on the verge of breakup since we left? Wouldn't they be better off staying where they are and working out the split to their advantage? They would both have a much easier path to the playoff, and thus more future revenue potential.

I'm not saying it won't increase SOME revenue, but all income statements have a revenue AND expense section. So the question becomes: at what cost? And I don't just mean financial.

---

I think ESPN would pay a lot more just for the increase in games with higher ratings of live tv viewers. Tu and OU in the dumpster fire means one big game for the whole conference the whole season. tu and OU added to the SEC adds a bunch of high ratings games to the overall conference schedule. You can't look at their ratings in that sh**hole conference. You have to imagine what kind of national audience tunes in to see OU/tu vs A&M/LSU/Bama/Aub/Flo/Geo/etc. They will add the 90 million just by having more games to the conference schedule. The extra will come from ESPN as a payment for these additional big games on their networks.

You may be correct but I'd like to see the numbers to back it up. It's not like they are going to add a bunch of ESPN subscribers because they already have the lion's share of them subscribed . Maybe the online viewers add a fair bit, I don't know but $91 mm is a lot and that's just a break even proposition and like 07 sez the $ 91mm does not account for inflation.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Really don't think this is a good read on the situation. The sips are stuck with the kids in Texas and OU has no way of going anywhere without OSU.

---

You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.
It is going to happen and we will all live happily ever after .

halfastros81 said:

---

You may be correct but I'd like to see the numbers to back it up. It's not like they are going to add a bunch of ESPN subscribers because they already have the lion's share of them subscribed . Maybe the online viewers add a fair bit, I don't know but $91 mm is a lot and that's just a break even proposition and like 07 sez the $ 91mm does not account for inflation.

---

I agree with your sentiment.

Others have been suggesting that ABC, ESPN, etc will get more revenue, not from subscribers but from ads/commercials, because they will jack up the price for commercials with the justification that the game is reaching more eyes.

That might be true, but that's not my area of expertise, so I have no idea. Seems a little like a bridge too far, IMO.

ETA: I just wondered...who's to say whether ABC/ESPN/etc would pass that extra ad revenue (if it even will exist) to the schools? Maybe they'd keep most of it for themselves/shareholders. I can imagine they'd be all for pushing the SEC to allow the sips & OU if it will line their (ABC/ESPN/etc) pockets, meanwhile suck it SEC schools...we'll give you a *little* more money, but not much after our "fees" are subtracted. Their justification could be, "whelp, we couldn't sell the ads for as much as we thought we could".

AngryAG said:

---

West Point Aggie said:

---

AngryAG said:

---

Aggieair said:

---

Not happening.

A&M, Mizzou, and Arkansas are hard no's.

Florida, UK, SCar, and Vandy are going to be no's so that they don't have to play Bama and Auburn every year.

---

That makes no sense. Arkie would love it. They have wanted to play UT every year. They will be hugely in favor. And they want the extra $$$.

Mizzou won't dare cross Sankey. They also aren't turning down extra $$$. And they won't block a deal that would bring a ton of extra $$$ to everyone walks in the conference.

And we will go along. It would be highly embarrassing to be on the losing end of a 13-1 vote.

---

So where is this supposed extra money (~90M) coming from?

---

Disney. To cock block Fox.

---

Definitely won't be the first time Disney Dizzy missed 'bigly' on picking/funding an athletic program. IMHO, they need to start using a shotgun and stationary targets at 10 paces

AngryAG said:

---

Aggieair said:

---

Not happening.

A&M, Mizzou, and Arkansas are hard no's.

Florida, UK, SCar, and Vandy are going to be no's so that they don't have to play Bama and Auburn every year.

---

That makes no sense. Arkie would love it. They have wanted to play UT every year. They will be hugely in favor. And they want the extra $$$.

Mizzou won't dare cross Sankey. They also aren't turning down extra $$$. And they won't block a deal that would bring a ton of extra $$$ to everyone walks in the conference.

And we will go along. It would be highly embarrassing to be on the losing end of a 13-1 vote.

---

13-1=12

Being the lone no vote would be redass as hell.

I may have overlooked this. But if this does happen when would they actually join? Is it the assumption that they have contracts holding them until 2025?

A lot of people talking out of their ass, I tell ya...

Quote:

---

You have to imagine what kind of national audience tunes in to see OU/tu vs A&M/LSU/Bama/Aub/Flo/Geo/etc.

---

Here's the thing: you're assuming they tune in for, say, t.u. vs. LSU or OU vs. 'Bama, or whatever. However, that means that the same weekend, LSU can't play Florida and Bama can't play Georgia. Other than OU/Bama, these 2 games are every bit as big nationally as anything an OU/t.u. game would be.

My question is what evidence do you have that shows that the OU/t.u. additions are going to add to the MARGINAL revenue (pardon the economic theory reference) of the conference, given the loss of the traditional SEC matchups? Remember, Tennessee may suck at the moment, but Bama/Tenn and Fla/Tenn are both big rivalries and would draw audiences on par with, say, t.u. and Georgia, or OU and everyone in the SEC other than Bama/A&M/LSU and maybe one or two others. You're just looking at one side of the equation, but there are still only a finite number of weeks. Besides, t.u. played LSU and I'm not sure that game was all that highly rated.

People are repeating stuff that I've been reading/hearing for a decade and a half. They might as well be saying t.u. is the best (coaching) job in the country ala 2005. I'm not saying everything is BS but think through things before regurgitating them.

You think through things so well that you think LSU-Texas did bad in ratings, but it was the 9th most watched college football game in 2019.

A game like that will always get good interest but they had virtually no competition for ratings when they played. I think it was inflated because of that in terms of where it fell in the yearly game rankings

To be fair the entire landscape shifted. Every time this has come up before the other 8 schools have gone to the mat over it. There is other stuff at play this time around