OU to SEC 2.0

[horn01]

I think the real "problem" for the big 12 is that Texas, with LHN, doesn't have to sweat other conferences' TV deals where as a team like OU, who is a historical power house but doesn't print its own money, has to worry about what a team like Arkansas, for instance, is making in comparison.
The other problem of course is that OU is down and the coach is squarely on the hot seat and Boren is using conference realignment as slight of hand.

 

[TexExSpur]

Personally, I don't want to see the demise of the B12 and the OU-Texas rivalry . It's bad enough that OU is politically tied to OSU, but to have another great rivalry go by the wayside is sickening.

Although, you would get to thump Aggy and their pull of OU stock in Texas would go bye-bye.

 

[MiccoMacey]

This is all just fodder for the summer, because nothing's changing anytime soon.

But if I had my druthers, I'd druther go to the Big 10 than the SEC. Much more respectable conference. The SEC, while currently a sports power conference, just seems sleazy to most outside of the SEC (just my humble opinion, no scientific poll to prove it). The Big 10 is where Boren wants to go to establish his legacy as the president of a legitimate academic institution. Make all the jokes you want, but Boren has vastly increased the national perspective of many programs while at OU.

Next would be the PAC 12. It makes less sense for many reasons, but it's still my second favorite conference.

The SEC would help geographically as West Virginia's the current outlier. But man, I don't want to go there.

Like I said, this talk means nothing. It's not happening. This started because a few pundits decided to read tea leaves out of a few events that have happened recently. It's just that...no more.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

I think a merger of sorts between the Big 12 and the ACC is the most logical thing, with the more football oriented schools going to this hybred conference and the rest going to SEC and B1G.

You would have North Carolina and Virginia going to the SEC.

Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, Tech and TCU joining forces with FSU, Miami, G Tech, Clemson, V Tech, WVU, Louisville, and Pitt.

The B1G would snag Duke, and Syracuse.

The biggest losers are ISU Wake, and NCSU

Oh well just a bunch of hooey for now.

 

[hookemmike]

Yo hookem.....so you are saying having the Spurs in the NBA finals add less eyeballs to the playoffs than the 76's?.....Did Revelee take your seat in the logic class?

With the SEC network in play, it's all about TV sets. Which is basically a percentage of population(about 60%) with a little influence of the teams involved. The history of Chokelahoma just doesn't add the extra value.

Oklahoma has 3.878 million people.
Virginia had 8.326 million people.
North Carolina has 9.944 million people.

Even looking at these numbers shows you that picking up a team or two from each state doesn't make sense when you only get $1.40 for SEC state subscribers. Even Missouri was a better deal at 6.064 million. Aggy was a steal at 26.96 million.

It's simple math. Ask yourself one question. Would you be willing to give up millions per year to add Chokelahoma?

How much more would you lose with the package deal?

 

[TexExSpur]

Maryland will forfeit $31.4 million for leaving the Atlantic Coast Conference to go to the Big Ten Conference.... The buyout is $50 million and that will likely be the cost for each team the SEC thinks they can pluck for TV sets.

If the SEC expands, I think they'll have to take what they can get and they will only expand if something like the Big 12 dissolution occurs or the B1G raids the ACC again....

The end game is either the ACC or Big 12 getting raided by the B1G and SEC. I can see the B1G starting the final war as they try to land ND and Texas or UVA and UNC. If UVA and UNC get persuaded to jump to the B1G, the SEC likely steps in and takes VaTech and NC State to get those TV's. If those four are robbed from the ACC, their will be a merger of some sort between remaining teams in the ACC and the Big 12.

 

[horn01]

With the SEC network in play, it's all about TV sets. Which is basically a percentage of population(about 60%) with a little influence of the teams involved. The history of Chokelahoma just doesn't add the extra value.

Oklahoma has 3.878 million people.
Virginia had 8.326 million people.
North Carolina has 9.944 million people.

Even looking at these numbers shows you that picking up a team or two from each state doesn't make sense when you only get $1.40 for SEC state subscribers. Even Missouri was a better deal at 6.064 million. Aggy was a steal at 26.96 million.

It's simple math. Ask yourself one question. Would you be willing to give up millions per year to add Chokelahoma?

How much more would you lose with the package deal?

False premise. Just because there are 10 million TV sets in NC doesn't mean 10 mil tune into North Carolina football. That's like claiming SMU gets you the Dallas market or U of H the Houston market. Everyone knows that Texas (and to some extent A&M) bring you those markets. Maybe, MAYBE v-tech brings some good ratings. On the other hand, how much of OK (and north Texas) watch OU football?

 

[hookemmike]

False premise. Just because there are 10 million TV sets in NC doesn't mean 10 mil tune into North Carolina football. That's like claiming SMU gets you the Dallas market or U of H the Houston market. Everyone knows that Texas (and to some extent A&M) bring you those markets. Maybe, MAYBE v-tech brings some good ratings. On the other hand, how much of OK (and north Texas) watch OU football?

I pointed out that 60% of the population has TV sets. When Virginia and North Carolina have more than double in TV sets, the difference in percentage of fans has to be more than double to even make it close. Keep in mind any fan from Texas that cheers for Oklahoma helps but the goal is to gain more states that don't have SEC teams so the 1.40 comes into play.

 

[horn01]

I pointed out that 60% of the population has TV sets. When Virginia and North Carolina have more than double in TV sets, the difference in percentage of fans has to be more than double to even make it close. Keep in mind any fan from Texas that cheers for Oklahoma helps but the goal is to gain more states that don't have SEC teams so the 1.40 comes into play.

Right, but of the TV sets in NC, I would be surprised if even 10 percent are actually tuned to NC football games. In OK I bet that number is well over half. I don't have stats to back this up, I'm just saying considering the value of markets solely by TV set numbers is a false premise....you have to consider what percentage of that market the games actually capture

 

[TexExSpur]

I pointed out that 60% of the population has TV sets. When Virginia and North Carolina have more than double in TV sets, the difference in percentage of fans has to be more than double to even make it close. Keep in mind any fan from Texas that cheers for Oklahoma helps but the goal is to gain more states that don't have SEC teams so the 1.40 comes into play.

So, you're saying they would balk at the idea of adding TEXAS because Aggy is a member? The two biggest gets for the SEC would be ND and Texas... They wont raid anyone, they will wait on the B1G to make their move unless that move involves Texas and ND. The only way I see the SEC adding NC and Virginia to their market share is if the ACC gets raided by the B1G whom will go after UNC and UVA if that occurs.

I highly doubt that ND will would even consider the SEC with Northern sports at play. It's all B1G if they really want to make a splash. I highly doubt Texas would consider the SEC, they've brushed off every invite so far.

The talks of expansion, dissolution, etc... are funny at this time. Momentum is changing and the B1G has the top dog right now in tOSU. The cyclical battle at the top seems to favor the conference to the North at this time and not the one lying in the Southeast. Meyer is building a monster and I think he is a better coach than little Nick. If Jimmy builds Michigan back to glory with Sparty playing well (I believe he will) and Ohio looking to continue their run....all eyes will be on the BIG!

 

[hookemmike]

So, you're saying they would balk at the idea of adding TEXAS because Aggy is a member? The two biggest gets for the SEC would be ND and Texas... They wont raid anyone, they will wait on the B1G to make their move unless that move involves Texas and ND. The only way I see the SEC adding NC and Virginia to their market share is if the ACC gets raided by the B1G whom will go after UNC and UVA if that occurs.

There is more to the story with us and aggy. They can pin all this against us.

Do you think Florida would want Florida State in?

Do you think South Carolina would want Clemson?

Do you think Kentucky would want Louisville?

Do you think Georgia would want Georgia Tech?

That is just the rivalries that come into play. The recruiting side of it will have an effect as well.

 

[TexExSpur]

There is more to the story with us and aggy. They can pin all this against us.

Do you think Florida would want Florida State in?

Do you think South Carolina would want Clemson?

Do you think Kentucky would want Louisville?

Do you think Georgia would want Georgia Tech?

That is just the rivalries that come into play. The recruiting side of it will have an effect as well.

Aggy wouldn't have the vote to prevent the SEC from gaining a cash cow... It wouldn't be any different than Ole Miss / Miss State or Alabama / Auburn and The U of Texas is a much bigger prize than Aggsy.

The four programs you mentioned aren't new additions with no clout.........

 

[DHHorn]

I'm in no way a TV marketing guru, but the SEC does not control this state. They only have the small portion of aggys. The majority of the state is Texas, Baylor, TCU , Tech. If they want the majority of the states ratings and support they would want to add UT.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

Aggsy are so stupid, they think they can keep Texas out of SEC if Texas wanted to come. It's like trying to stop the ocean tide with a spoon.

Texas is the most valuable entity in college sports. The money Texas brings in would rewrite any TV contract. The biggest obsiticle is probably the TV Execs because they know they would really have to pony up if you put Texas in the B1G or the SEC.

I personally think this is why they did pony up to the Big 12, to keep Texas from joining another conference and creating a monster.

 

[hookemmike]

I'm in no way a TV marketing guru, but the SEC does not control this state. They only have the small portion of aggys. The majority of the state is Texas, Baylor, TCU , Tech. If they want the majority of the states ratings and support they would want to add UT.

The only problem with your argument is tv companies provide a sports package and our network and the SEC network get put together. As far as ratings, they won't be released early on.

 

[hookemmike]

Aggy wouldn't have the vote to prevent the SEC from gaining a cash cow... It wouldn't be any different than Ole Miss / Miss State or Alabama / Auburn and The U of Texas is a much bigger prize than Aggsy.

The four programs you mentioned aren't new additions with no clout.........

Their votes have the same clout as everyone else in the SEC.

 

[hookemmike]

I wouldn't be surprised if LSU and Arkansas have a problem with us in the SEC as well. LSU is loving the state of Texas right now!

 

[horn01]

The myth that A&M can block Texas is based on a supposed GENTLEMANS AGREEMENT that any existing SEC member can unilaterally block the invitation of another program from the same state. It's not written anywhere. The idea that the other SEC teams would let Texas go to another conference simply to pacify aggie is pure fantasy. If there is a unanimous vote rule in place, you just have the other members amend the rule.
I don't think Texas has any interest being aligned with the SEC, but the door will always be open.

 

[TexExSpur]

Their votes have the same clout as everyone else in the SEC.

Aggsy is one vote of 14, the non-clout is what they call brethren backing their play.... The newbie is a pawn. The "Gentleman's Agreement" wouldn't apply...


Your posting history and contextual style are very aggy-ish.

 

[oldhorn2]

With the SEC network in play, it's all about TV sets. Which is basically a percentage of population(about 60%) with a little influence of the teams involved. The history of Chokelahoma just doesn't add the extra value.

Oklahoma has 3.878 million people.
Virginia had 8.326 million people.
North Carolina has 9.944 million people.

Even looking at these numbers shows you that picking up a team or two from each state doesn't make sense when you only get $1.40 for SEC state subscribers. Even Missouri was a better deal at 6.064 million. Aggy was a steal at 26.96 million.

It's simple math. Ask yourself one question. Would you be willing to give up millions per year to add Chokelahoma?

Hookemmike...This is why I hate arguing with aggys....logic and facts are useless.

However, since you brought it up.....because you are the one that brought TV ratings into this conversation...lets just think about TV. What game is going to have higher ratings...NC -vs= Alabama or OU -vs Alabama?...It would not be close!...or (a little closer to home for you) which game...aTm-vs- Bama....or OU -vs - Bama?...Now you might not understand why, but there is a reason LEGASY teams get higher viewing ratings. Now there might not be as many watching OU in Colly station, but in the rest of the country, I guarantee OU is the bigger draw than NC or Virginia or aTm for that matter.

 

[DHHorn]

The only problem with your argument is tv companies provide a sports package and our network and the SEC network get put together. As far as ratings, they won't be released early on.

I guess my point is that they would want to add teams that have a large fan base and people would want to watch. Money follows teams that have a big fan base and UT's is one of the biggest. Obviously there are reasons why some would not want UT or OU in the SEC, but I don't see how money can be one of them.

 

[topdecktiger]

Right, but of the TV sets in NC, I would be surprised if even 10 percent are actually tuned to NC football games. In OK I bet that number is well over half. I don't have stats to back this up, I'm just saying considering the value of markets solely by TV set numbers is a false premise....you have to consider what percentage of that market the games actually capture

That's not really how it works. The key thing here is the conference network. Those are subscription based, and as such aren't really as dependent on ratings. The reason for that is, the conference networks are bundled into other packages by the cable companies. So what happens is that half the people who have SECN, for example, probably never watch it. However, the conference still makes money, because those people are still paying for it, since it's in their cable package.

The other key thing about the conference networks is that the price goes up dramatically for subscribers who are in the conference footprint. The SEC gets $1.30 for subscribers inside the footprint, but only 25 cents outside the footprint. Adding Texas doesn't change that payout, because the SEC already gets $1.30 from that market, since it's already in the footprint. The SEC would make more money by adding a school with a new market.

 

[TexExSpur]

Too bad that's not the only way they would get wealthy off Texas...............

http://blog.al.com/press-register-sports/2010/04/finebaum_how_texas_nearly_join.html
I'll simply use Finebaum since he's an SEC hack!

They would take Texas in a heartbeat.

 

[horn01]

The amount of money a cable provider will pay for a given network is tied to the ratings, so yes, it definitely matters that for a team like TCU, for instance, does not in any way carry the Dallas market. It doesn't add any real value to the conference TV rights even though it's located in a big market. Trying to separate population from ratings is completely ignoring the market share concept. This is just reaching by Aggies and closet Aggies to try to justify why the SEC would turn away two major brands, both of whom got invitations in the last round of discussions.

You think if the SEC added Texas they wouldn't use it as a bargaining chip to get more money in negotiations because A&M provides all the value they can get out of Texas TV markets? You are delusional.

 

[topdecktiger]

Too bad that's not the only way they would get wealthy off Texas...............

Not really. The TV contracts simply don't work the way you think they do. When people talk about ratings, they usually think of the national games. Problem is, most games are televised regionally, not nationally. The regional games are televised primarily within the conference footprint. If your footprint is small, then you simply won't be able to get good ratings, no matter how popular the teams are. For example, even if you get 100% of the market in Nebraska, that's still not as good as 25% of the market in Texas.

The point is, the SEC has plenty of ratings draws. It's the highest-rated conference in the country. What they need are more markets, to take advantage of those ratings draws.

 

[topdecktiger]

The amount of money a cable provider will pay for a given network is tied to the ratings, so yes, it definitely matters that for a team like TCU, for instance, does not in any way carry the Dallas market. It doesn't add any real value to the conference TV rights even though it's located in a big market. Trying to separate population from ratings is completely ignoring the market share concept. This is just reaching by Aggies and closet Aggies to try to justify why the SEC would turn away two major brands, both of whom got invitations in the last round of discussions.

You think if the SEC added Texas they wouldn't use it as a bargaining chip to get more money in negotiations because A&M provides all the value they can get out of Texas TV markets? You are delusional.

But see the problem is, that's already been established. What you don't understand is that it's not up to the individual team to draw the ratings. For example, a game like LSU vs Georgia will draw good ratings. So what SECN does is take that game, and televise it in the Dallas market (using your example) and that's how they get the ratings. The ratings aren't solely dependent on the local team.

Also, the rates have already been established. The SEC gets $1.30 per subscriber, in footprint. That's the most of any conference, and better than most other networks. They already get $1.30 in Dallas as it stands. (Same for Houston, San Antonio, etc.)

 

[TexExSpur]

Not really. The TV contracts simply don't work the way you think they do. When people talk about ratings, they usually think of the national games. Problem is, most games are televised regionally, not nationally. The regional games are televised primarily within the conference footprint. If your footprint is small, then you simply won't be able to get good ratings, no matter how popular the teams are. For example, even if you get 100% of the market in Nebraska, that's still not as good as 25% of the market in Texas.

The point is, the SEC has plenty of ratings draws. It's the highest-rated conference in the country. What they need are more markets, to take advantage of those ratings draws.

You whiffed on my post even if Texas brings more Tv's nationally to the network and would be a just cause for renegotiating the deal since there is a current network that would get dissolved that is a partner with your current network. The brand alone would bring more money to the conference. They would have to add that little patch...

 

[Scholz]

With the SEC network in play...

Tell us more, aggy.

 

[horn01]

Not really. The TV contracts simply don't work the way you think they do. When people talk about ratings, they usually think of the national games. Problem is, most games are televised regionally, not nationally. The regional games are televised primarily within the conference footprint. If your footprint is small, then you simply won't be able to get good ratings, no matter how popular the teams are. For example, even if you get 100% of the market in Nebraska, that's still not as good as 25% of the market in Texas.

The point is, the SEC has plenty of ratings draws. It's the highest-rated conference in the country. What they need are more markets, to take advantage of those ratings draws.

You are still wrong. Your thought process relies on all Subscription rates being equal and the total payout only being effected by number of subscribers. That is just wrong. Let's make it simple. If there were an A&M network....let's say they can get two cent per subscriber. the number of subscribers certainly effects the total pay out. Now what if Aggie network added Texas. You telling me the pay out is the same because those subscribers already had A&M network? Bullshit. Now the two cents a subscriber they were getting becomes 10 cents per subscriber, divided by two. Get it?

 

[topdecktiger]

You are still wrong. Your thought process relies on all Subscription rates being equal and the total payout only being effected by number of subscribers. That is just wrong. Let's make it simple. If there were an A&M network....let's say they can get two cent pets suscriber. the number of subscribers certainly effects the total pay out. Now what if Aggie network added Texas. You telling me the pay out is the same because those subscribers already had A&M network? Bullshit. Now the two cents a subscriber they were getting becomes 10 cents per subscriber, divided by two. Get it?

They are equal. You are just wrong. It is a fact the SEC gets $1.30 for every subscriber within the conference footprint. Every subscriber in the state of Alabama pays $1.30, every subscriber in Missouri pays $1.30, every subscriber in Texas pays $1.30, every subscriber in Arkansas pays $1.30, etc. You can pitch a fit all you want, but that's how it works. So not, adding Texas doesn't increase the subscription fee. It's already set: $1.30 in the footprint, and 25 cents outside the footprint.

Here is just one link (of many) which proves the point:

Distributors in SEC country can expect to pay a rate of $1.30 to carry the soon-to-be-launched SEC Network, according to several sources with knowledge of the rate card.

That fee, paid on a monthly per-subscriber basis, is what cable and satellite companies within the SEC’s 11-state footprint would pay to ESPN, the owner of the SEC Network. Outside of SEC territory, the channel’s license fee drops to 25 cents.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx