WestAustinAg said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

I'll go to my grave believing that ESPN basically went to Sankey and told him that they were taking Texas and Oklahoma--how he was to handle that was up to him. He obviously earned the Snakey nickname from how it got handled.

I would still be on the phone with the B1G. This is a war and the B1G needs some southern representation from a giant AAU research school in a huge state. Mizzou would probably go, too. The SEC does nothing for the Ags going forward. No recruiting advantage, diluted state viewership now, and increased competition from two schools with a lot of resources.

In the end, A&M did way more for the SEC than the SEC ever has done for A&M.

---

#TexasAM has done more for the #SEC than the SEC has done for Texas A&M. Time to move to the #B1G! pic.twitter.com/rZkthYIyPE

— Message Board Geniuses (@BoardGeniuses) May 8, 2023

---

What a compliment...now, exactly when did the SEC Network come into existence? Did it happen to occur when they showed ESPN that the ENTIRE state of TEXAS was now available to them?

Sterling82 said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

It wasn't about more money per school it was about keeping of the 2 best available programs out of the new B1G

---

What was so important about that? We, and the SEC, would have been better off if they had.

---

how would the SEC have been better off without two marquee programs, exactly?

greg.w.h said:

---

When I was in college we had ESPN on pretty much 24x7. I can't watch it at all now except live events. So there is that…

---

Same here. Late 90s ESPN was awesome. I still watch live events and every so often will catch Sports Center(I like Scott Van Pelt) but other than that, I stopped watching because they chose to bring politics into sports thus ruining my safe space.

Why do others get a safe space while mine got ruined with political crud? I should boycott something.

GigEmReggie said:

---

Sterling82 said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

It wasn't about more money per school it was about keeping of the 2 best available programs out of the new B1G

---

What was so important about that? We, and the SEC, would have been better off if they had.

---

how would the SEC have been better off without two marquee programs, exactly?

---

1. The money was the main selling point. 2. It's debatable that the Big 10 would have ever taken OU. Actually we know the answer. They would have been turned down again and again. Texas could have moved and that would have done no harm to the SEC. They remain the same program either way and with A&M in Texas in the SEC the threat is 100% mitigated.

The proof is in the pudding. So far not better off but only time will tell. I have to admit the sips do bring incremental eyeballs. Does OU … I dunno. Are the sips incremental eyeballs worth the pain? Probably, but definitely not a plus for us and that's the thing, our going to the SEC was designed to insulate us from that on our part and I feel like that was an implied part of the deal.

levypantsEOY said:

---

So your take is that adding tu and ou won't add viewership for the conference on a percentage basis?
That's one of the worst takes I've ever read, my guy.

---

Wow. Way to twist his words, sip. Fact is, according to the contract, tu and okie are not bringing any school more money.

33 said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

In the end, A&M did way more for the SEC than the SEC ever has done for A&M.

---

Wow! I don't think you should share this with the rest of the SEC.

---

Technically A&M brought more money to each school, doubling the incomes for each school. The liberal mess in Austin adds zero money to each school. Suck it sip

JWinTX said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

JWinTX said:

---

In the end, A&M did way more for the SEC than the SEC ever has done for A&M.

---

#TexasAM has done more for the #SEC than the SEC has done for Texas A&M. Time to move to the #B1G! pic.twitter.com/rZkthYIyPE

— Message Board Geniuses (@BoardGeniuses) May 8, 2023

---

What a compliment...now, exactly when did the SEC Network come into existence? Did it happen to occur when they showed ESPN that the ENTIRE state of TEXAS was now available to them?

---

GigEmReggie said:

---

Sterling82 said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

It wasn't about more money per school it was about keeping of the 2 best available programs out of the new B1G

---

What was so important about that? We, and the SEC, would have been better off if they had.

---

how would the SEC have been better off without two marquee programs, exactly?

---

Well, one of them is a poison pill that kills every conference it's a part of, sooooo...

levypantsEOY said:

---

So your take is that adding tu and ou won't add viewership for the conference on a percentage basis?
That's one of the worst takes I've ever read, my guy.

---

Increasing average viewership is more difficult in the SEC since it already has many of the top viewed teams. 9 SEC teams were in the top 25 in average viewership per game last year. ou ranked behind all of them. tu ranked behind 4. Taken together, they're basically averaging out to just another SEC team. If they were added to the PAC then for sure they would bring a disproportionate number of eyeballs and increase the average, but the SEC isn't the PAC.

TexAggie1999 said:

---

This thread is stupid. The contract, which was signed before OU and Texas signed onto the SEC, is believed to include that adding schools increases total payout by the amount each school makes so the total per school is the same. The article says the SEC is trying to get more because it is Texas and OU.

We do NOT yet know what them joining will do to the payout. Why are we complaining before we even know what will happen?

---

That is because social media is meant to give people a forum to respond intelligently. but alas......

Quote:

---

Increasing average viewership is more difficult in the SEC since it already has many of the top viewed teams. 9 SEC teams were in the top 25 in average viewership per game last year. ou ranked behind all of them. tu ranked behind 4. Taken together, they're basically averaging out to just another SEC team. If they were added to the PAC then for sure they would bring a disproportionate number of eyeballs and increase the average, but the SEC isn't the PAC.

---

And what are the numbers for those 2 schools going to be when they are playing SEC conference games and not Big 12 conference games?

Higher, as will the numbers for the SEC teams they are playing.

Smarter people than you have crunched the numbers on this.

However much more money we got because Snakey conspired to let the sips in wasn't worth it,


especially if it was ZILCH

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Increasing average viewership is more difficult in the SEC since it already has many of the top viewed teams. 9 SEC teams were in the top 25 in average viewership per game last year. ou ranked behind all of them. tu ranked behind 4. Taken together, they're basically averaging out to just another SEC team. If they were added to the PAC then for sure they would bring a disproportionate number of eyeballs and increase the average, but the SEC isn't the PAC.

---

And what are the numbers for those 2 schools going to be when they are playing SEC conference games and not Big 12 conference games?

Higher, as will the numbers for the SEC teams they are playing.

Smarter people than you have crunched the numbers on this.

---

This is literally not true. No more money for any current SEC teams. The negotiating is over. But tu and OU get substantially more than they did so we helped them out.

Now if we all go to 9 games we all make a bit more. But tu and OU aren't the catalyst for the 9 game schedule. So no…

tu and OU are mega brands. We are not, and neither is Missouri. Had we not left for the SEC when we did, we'd be in the XII forever with Tech, Baylor, TCU and Cougar High.

We'll be an afterthought in the SEC now, but at least we are at the table.

The Chicken Ranch said:

---

tu and OU are mega brands. We are not, and neither is Missouri. Had we not left for the SEC when we did, we'd be in the XII forever with Tech, Baylor, TCU and Cougar High.

We'll be an afterthought in the SEC now, but at least we are at the table.

---

You poor simp.

We were told this move would add VALUE to the conference. No $$$ value YET! BIG makes the most $$$ not the SEC. Sankey is a slimy, worthless POS.

Man it's heartening to know a couple of message board tough guys understand the $ situation better than league execs who made the decision to add two of the biggest programs in the country.
Y'all post some white hot stock market picks so we can all get rich.

levypantsEOY said:

---

Man it's heartening to know a couple of message board tough guys understand the $ situation better than league execs who made the decision to add two of the biggest programs in the country.
Y'all post some white hot stock market picks so we can all get rich.

---

So, are you a sip or mobilhoma?

Forgot to add, tuck fexas!

It's laughable to claim that the geniuses at ESPN and Sankey crunched the numbers so it has to be a great deal. Yeah, sure these clowns definitely have an infallible track record.

It's already reported through The Athletic that ESPN is balking at paying more for 9 sex games. They must have figured out that Sankey wants to go to 9 games with or without the money. Essentially they glac seen his cards. Such a dumbass. That was the last hope that adding tu and OU could help the conference members now benefit from their add in.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Increasing average viewership is more difficult in the SEC since it already has many of the top viewed teams. 9 SEC teams were in the top 25 in average viewership per game last year. ou ranked behind all of them. tu ranked behind 4. Taken together, they're basically averaging out to just another SEC team. If they were added to the PAC then for sure they would bring a disproportionate number of eyeballs and increase the average, but the SEC isn't the PAC.

---

And what are the numbers for those 2 schools going to be when they are playing SEC conference games and not Big 12 conference games?

Higher, as will the numbers for the SEC teams they are playing.

Smarter people than you have crunched the numbers on this.

---

Are people who don't watch college football suddenly going to watch college football because ou and tu joined the SEC? Probably not. ou and tu are going to bring the viewers who watch them for them, and on a per team basis, they average out to the average SEC team. ou ranked behind 9 SEC teams in viewership last year. Saying they're somehow going to increase those teams' viewership with their lesser viewership is like saying 1+2=4. Now, viewership may increase by virtue of having an extra conference game (which would naturally draw more coverage and viewership than a directional school cupcake) or the novelty of playing new teams, but ou and tu are basically another Auburn or Florida. Over ten years, they're not going to substantially increase the average viewership of the conference.

And some of those same smarter people than me crunched the numbers and decided the lhn was a great idea, too. How'd that work out?