AL.com-SEC Expansion: Why the Big 12 is the key to SEC adding more schools

[NuttinItUp]

OSU is a strong football program and perennially strong in hoops. Add in top flight baseball and you cover the big three sports. The drawback to OU and OSU is the secondary sports don't align with the traditional sports played by the SEC, including strong men's gymnastics at OU and wrestling at both (but especially OSU). Wrestling is particularly strong and I think only Missouri has a wrestling program in the SEC.

Think what they add to women's sports: OU is a juggernaut in softball and women's hoops.

Economics
1. For most conferences, Football is King b/c it generates the lion's share of the revenue, Hoops is a side tent. None of the other sports are even considered.
2. The current business model is about footprint, and you essentially get the same footprint with OU as with OU/OSU. OSU adds very little additional value to the mix.

(Caveats: I realize OU/OSU are politically tied together now, so it may be a moot point. Also, with cord-cutting, footprint may become less relevant over the next decade.)

[Dominicanhog]

Apparently that wasn't the case according to this:

The Big 12's television rights deals with ESPN and FOX run through 2024-25. The league heavily flirted with expanding in 2016, mainly to capitalize on a clause that would have resulted in significant extra revenue, but ultimately decided to stand pat at 10 members after ESPN and FOX were very against the idea. The one thing holding the Big 12 together, its grant of rights deal, is scheduled to expire in 2025. Interestingly, Big 12 schools had a chance last fall to extend the grant of rights and chose not to.

They had a chance to increase revenues with expansion of the conference, but chose not to expand. That makes for an interesting turn of events and discussion as to why that was their choice?

If they didn't  expand to increase TV revenue and they didn't extend grant of rights.. it appears they are getting ready for a divorce in 2025..

[NuttinItUp]

What about Virginia Tech?

They have a number of advantages:
--Brings the state of Virginia into the SEC footprint as well as a large chunk of the DC Metro
--Expands the SEC East
--VA Tech is only other public SMC (military college) that is an FBS school (Along with Texas A&M)
--The ACC would be much more likely to let them go than teams like Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke

[MuskogeeHogFan]

What about Virginia Tech?

They have a number of advantages:
--Brings the state of Virginia into the SEC footprint as well as a large chunk of the DC Metro
--Expands the SEC East
--VA Tech is only other public SMC (military college) that is an FBS school (Along with Texas A&M)
--The ACC would be much more likely to let them go than teams like Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke

The ACC Grant of Rights agreement runs through 2035-2036. It is doubtful that anyone is going to give up 20 years of revenue to come to the SEC.

[NuttinItUp]

The ACC Grant of Rights agreement runs through 2035-2036. It is doubtful that anyone is going to give up 20 years of revenue to come to the SEC.

Dang it! There goes my good idea. Thanks.

I guess that is why the article the OP posted focused on the Big 12 since their grant of rights expires soonest. 2025 isn't really that far away, and presumably the teams would start signing contracts to stay or jump at least a couple years before the deadline.

[Hogtimes]

I still say if the SEC goes after 2 Big 12 teams, it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I'm not backing away from that.
[OU e/quote]

That is what I have heard. 

[GuvHog]

That is what the chief talking head of the SEC predicts.   However, I am not sure the SEC will get them.

I believe they will eventually. Both schools have had SEC invitations on the table for quite some time now. Neither school likes the fact that the Longhorns won't give up the LHN so a Big 12 Network can happen and neither likes getting a smaller share of conference earnings than Texas. They are also unhappy about the Conference not expanding.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I believe they will eventually. Both schools have had SEC invitations on the table for quite some time now. Neither school likes the fact that the Longhorns won't give up the LHN so a Big 12 Network can happen and neither likes getting a smaller share of conference earnings than Texas. They are also unhappy about the Conference not expanding.

This part isn't true if you read the article I originally posted. They chose 1) not to expand the size of the conference and 2) not to extend the GOR's. Now I agree that the LHN is a major troublemaker in the Big 12 and it is a loser for ESPN and the Big 12 as a whole would be better off (as would ESPN) if it went away. Also, everyone can draw their own conclusions from the decision of the conference to not expand and to not extend the GOR's but in my opinion it sounds as if change might be in the wind.

[GuvHog]

This part isn't true if you read the article I originally posted. They chose 1) not to expand the size of the conference and 2) not to extend the GOR's. Now I agree that the LHN is a major troublemaker in the Big 12 and it is a loser for ESPN and the Big 12 as a whole would be better off (as would ESPN) if it went away. Also, everyone can draw their own conclusions from the decision of the conference to not expand and to not extend the GOR's but in my opinion it sounds as if change might be in the wind.

Let me put it this way: Bob Stoops the former OU head coach pushed hard for expansion and was not happy at all when it didn't happen. It's not a coincidence that he retired recently. Bob also pushed for OU to jump to the SEC too and didn't get that either.

[NuttinItUp]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: The more teams that are in the SEC, the harder it is for Arkansas to win an SEC Championship.

Just sayin'...

[RME]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: The more teams that are in the SEC, the harder it is for Arkansas to win an SEC Championship.

Just sayin'...

I will never understand why folks think bringing Oklahoma and Oklahoma State into the SEC will help Arkansas aside from financial gain.

[GuvHog]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet: The more teams that are in the SEC, the harder it is for Arkansas to win an SEC Championship.

Just sayin'...

Actually with Missouri, OU and, Okla State added to the SEC West with Bama and Auburn moving to the SEC East, It would make getting to the SEC Championship game a bit less difficult for the Hogs.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Let me put it this way: Bob Stoops the former OU head coach pushed hard for expansion and was not happy at all when it didn't happen. It's not a coincidence that he retired recently. Bob also pushed for OU to jump to the SEC too and didn't get that either.

1. Maybe Stoops wanted to expand, I'm not sure.
2. Your implication that non-expansion was a reason for his recent retirement just shows how little you have researched the reason for his retirement, Guv. It had nothing to do with the conference not pursuing expansion.
3. I've never read where Bob Stoops pushed for leaving the Big 12 and joining the SEC, though perhaps he did mention at some point.

Guv if you could just provide links to verify what you just posted it will help me learn some things that I wasn't previously aware of. Thanks.

[GuvHog]

1. Maybe Stoops wanted to expand, I'm not sure.
2. Your implication that non-expansion was a reason for his recent retirement just shows how little you have researched the reason for his retirement, Guv. It had nothing to do with the conference not pursuing expansion.
3. I've never read where Bob Stoops pushed for leaving the Big 12 and joining the SEC, though perhaps he did mention at some point.

Guv if you could just provide links to verify what you just posted it will help me learn some things that I wasn't previously aware of. Thanks.

I realize that the official reason Stoops gave for retiring was his health and that was the main reason he retired but it's no secret that he was not happy at all about the conference not expanding.

When A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, OU flirted with the Idea of making the jump too and Stoops supported the move but the OU PTB refused to make the move even though the OU faithful were pushing hard for it.

[RME]

I realize that the official reason Stoops gave for retiring was his health and that was the main reason he retired but it's no secret that he was not happy at all about the conference not expanding.

When A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, OU flirted with the Idea of making the jump too and Stoops supported the move but the OU PTB refused to make the move even though the OU faithful were pushing hard for it.

So about those links/sources...

[GuvHog]

So about those links/sources...

I just remember the articles and the banter about it at the time.

Our Church's former Youth Director is a BIG OU fan and was really excited about OU possibly joining the SEC but was highly upset when it didn't happen.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I realize that the official reason Stoops gave for retiring was his health and that was the main reason he retired but it's no secret that he was not happy at all about the conference not expanding.

If it's no secret, I'm sure you won't have any problem providing the link to that?

When A&M and Missouri left the Big 12, OU flirted with the Idea of making the jump too and Stoops supported the move but the OU PTB refused to make the move even though the OU faithful were pushing hard for it.

Now I am going to be clear that this is not fact, but merely my opinion...I cannot believe that the SEC would have taken all three at one time. It might have been A&M and OU, but I doubt it would have been OU and Missouri. Missouri was begging for a home after they were spurned by the Big Ten and they just wanted to get away from Texas in the Big 12.

But if the SEC had the choice, do you really think that they would have turned down a deal of OU and A&M? I don't. But there has always been a fly in that ointment and it has been that Oklahoma Legislators and people in power never wanted OU to take off to a better spot (like the SEC) leaving their little brother (Okla State) to fend for themselves. It has been a factor in the past. Is it still as big of a factor? I'm not sure, maybe?

Do I believe that if the SEC approached Oklahoma and Oklahoma State about joining the SEC that they would probably accept the invitation? They very well might. But on the other hand, OU gives up a lot of power and influence and probably some wins each year by making a move to the SEC. Okla State would probably lose some wins as well, but T. Boone Pickens would probably love the increase in revenues that would come from a renegotiated t.v. package with the addition of those two teams.

But the thing is, Oklahoma really retains power and influence by staying in the Big 12 so you have to wonder then, why didn't they push for an extension of the GOR's? I think I read where of all of the G-5 teams that the conference surveyed with regard to expansion, that they didn't find any that would be suitable or that would add value to the Big 12. I find that difficult to believe, given that UCF is bigger than a lot of Big 12 schools and opens up a Florida market for them and even if Colorado State isn't a name that is on everyone's lips, it would push the Big 12 back into the Colorado market. Those are just two examples.

It looks like the Big 12 will eventually go away when their GOR's gets close to expiring. If Oklahoma is invited to the SEC at or near that time, I wouldn't be surprised to see Okla State being a part of the deal, unless of course Okla State has their own deal in place with someone like the Pac 12.

We will see.

[Hogwild]

I still say if the SEC goes after 2 Big 12 teams, it will be Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. I'm not backing away from that.

Doubt that would ever happen, the current SEC schools would lose revenue taking two schools from Oklahoma.  Kansas would be a better dance partner.

Why it doesn't make sense to add Oklahoma State:

The SEC has its sights set on the biggest fish it can land. As far as revenue is concerned, Okie State secured $95.9 million in the 2014-15 academic year, which ranks lower than all but four SEC schools. And if Oklahoma indeed jumps to the SEC, there's much less of an incentive for the conference to add a second school in the state of Oklahoma. The limited market size would only marginally benefit the SEC.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Doubt that would ever happen, the current SEC schools would lose revenue taking two schools from Oklahoma.  Kansas would be a better dance partner.

I'll disagree. Now I will grant you that Oklahoma State, while having a really loyal alumni and fan base doesn't really bring a lot to the table, Oklahoma doesn't rely on state viewership, they are one of the few schools that really tap into a national following in terms of viewership. If things are still the way that they used to be, Oklahoma may not come without Okla State and if that were the case, it wouldn't be a bad bargain for the SEC. Additionally, expansion of the SEC brand would bring with it increased value and a renegotiated t.v. package that would add money, not take money away.

That said, we have a few years before any of this becomes a serious discussion so it is all speculation at this point.

[NuttinItUp]

I'll disagree. Now I will grant you that Oklahoma State, while having a really loyal alumni and fan base doesn't really bring a lot to the table, Oklahoma doesn't rely on state viewership, they are one of the few schools that really tap into a national following in terms of viewership. If things are still the way that they used to be, Oklahoma may not come without Okla State and if that were the case, it wouldn't be a bad bargain for the SEC. Additionally, expansion of the SEC brand would bring with it increased value and a renegotiated t.v. package that would add money, not take money away.

That said, we have a few years before any of this becomes a serious discussion so it is all speculation at this point.

Yes, the calculation is taking a good school with a crap sandwich school or going after another school. Obviously, if a conference could split up OU/OState, then the logical choice would just be OU, but that might not be possible.

In terms of timeframe, 2025 is only 8 years away, and I assume schools will want to have their contracts signed to know where they are going (or staying) at least 2 or 3 years before the actual termination date.

[Inhogswetrust]

What about Virginia Tech?

They have a number of advantages:
--Brings the state of Virginia into the SEC footprint as well as a large chunk of the DC Metro
--Expands the SEC East
--VA Tech is only other public SMC (military college) that is an FBS school (Along with Texas A&M)
--The ACC would be much more likely to let them go than teams like Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke

You forgot this thread is about the little 12 and not the ACC..............................That being said VT is an excellent choice IF the SEC could make it easier to take an ACC team.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Yes, the calculation is taking a good school with a crap sandwich school or going after another school. Obviously, if a conference could split up OU/OState, then the logical choice would just be OU, but that might not be possible.

In terms of timeframe, 2025 is only 8 years away, and I assume schools will want to have their contracts signed to know where they are going (or staying) at least 2 or 3 years before the actual termination date.

That's right and though Okla State might not bring as much to the table as Oklahoma, they wouldn't exactly be a "crap sandwich". It would be like adding someone like Ole Miss, Miss State or Missouri to the fold.

And yeah, if they are going to dissolve I'm sure that internally, they are already discussing that so that everyone has ample time to find new conference homes. But if that were the case, you would think that something would have leaked out...maybe it will. That could be one of the reasons that Texas is so stubbornly holding onto the LHN? Maybe they figure it will have a better future as an Independent? No other conference is going to take them as long as they keep the LHN.

[Inhogswetrust]

So about those links/sources...

I think he uses that psychic that never saw it coming recently...................

[Inhogswetrust]

I just remember the articles and the banter about it at the time.

Our Church's former Youth Director is a BIG OU fan and was really excited about OU possibly joining the SEC but was highly upset when it didn't happen.

Articles and banter are always accurate enough for you....................

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The ACC Grant of Rights agreement runs through 2035-2036. It is doubtful that anyone is going to give up 20 years of revenue to come to the SEC.

You forgot this thread is about the little 12 and not the ACC..............................That being said VT is an excellent choice IF the SEC could make it easier to take an ACC team.

And of course there is this, which is why the title of the article is about the Big 12.

[Inhogswetrust]

If it's no secret, I'm sure you won't have any problem providing the link to that?

Now I am going to be clear that this is not fact, but merely my opinion...I cannot believe that the SEC would have taken all three at one time. It might have been A&M and OU, but I doubt it would have been OU and Missouri. Missouri was begging for a home after they were spurned by the Big Ten and they just wanted to get away from Texas in the Big 12.

But if the SEC had the choice, do you really think that they would have turned down a deal of OU and A&M? I don't. But there has always been a fly in that ointment and it has been that Oklahoma Legislators and people in power never wanted OU to take off to a better spot (like the SEC) leaving their little brother (Okla State) to fend for themselves. It has been a factor in the past. Is it still as big of a factor? I'm not sure, maybe?

Do I believe that if the SEC approached Oklahoma and Oklahoma State about joining the SEC that they would probably accept the invitation? They very well might. But on the other hand, OU gives up a lot of power and influence and probably some wins each year by making a move to the SEC. Okla State would probably lose some wins as well, but T. Boone Pickens would probably love the increase in revenues that would come from a renegotiated t.v. package with the addition of those two teams.

But the thing is, Oklahoma really retains power and influence by staying in the Big 12 so you have to wonder then, why didn't they push for an extension of the GOR's? I think I read where of all of the G-5 teams that the conference surveyed with regard to expansion, that they didn't find any that would be suitable or that would add value to the Big 12. I find that difficult to believe, given that UCF is bigger than a lot of Big 12 schools and opens up a Florida market for them and even if Colorado State isn't a name that is on everyone's lips, it would push the Big 12 back into the Colorado market. Those are just two examples.

It looks like the Big 12 will eventually go away when their GOR's gets close to expiring. If Oklahoma is invited to the SEC at or near that time, I wouldn't be surprised to see Okla State being a part of the deal, unless of course Okla State has their own deal in place with someone like the Pac 12.

We will see.

It's not about the size of the school but the size of the following and interest in them by sports fans.........................

[MuskogeeHogFan]

It's not about the size of the school but the size of the following and interest in them by sports fans.........................

I believe that UCF would have a greater following if they were a member of a P-5 conference. Same reason that Texas and Oklahoma wouldn't want to add Houston to the Big 12, plus recruiting. Same reason that Florida wouldn't want to see UCF added to the SEC or FSU and Miami not wanting them added to the ACC. For the Big 12, it might be a good move for both parties, if they hadn't voted against expansion.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Here is my take,

Forget the ACC schools, the ACC is strong and makes good money and are starting their own network soon.  None of them want to exchange that for the grind of the SEC.  if one does move it would be more likely to the BX.

The SEC isn't taking another Texas team just to get to 16 unless, god forbid, its Texas. 

There is not a Big XII team we want that will move until the conference folds because the ones we want are the ones making the most money. 

I can only see Kansas going BX, overall they wouldn't add much more the the SEC than OSU.  OSU is way more competitive in way more sports than Kansas

We wouldn't take OSU unless it was a package deal with OU and OU is too chicken to leave the BXII.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Here is my take,

Forget the ACC schools, the ACC is strong and makes good money and are starting their own network soon.  None of them want to exchange that for the grind of the SEC.  if one does move it would be more likely to the BX.

The SEC isn't taking another Texas team just to get to 16 unless, god forbid, its Texas. 

There is not a Big XII team we want that will move until the conference folds because the ones we want are the ones making the most money. 

I can only see Kansas going BX, overall they wouldn't add much more the the SEC than OSU.  OSU is way more competitive in way more sports than Kansas

We wouldn't take OSU unless it was a package deal with OU and OU is too chicken to leave the BXII.

If true, why didn't they push for an extension of the GOR's when they had the chance? You know that everyone not named Oklahoma or Texas probably wanted to extend the GOR's and keep the conference because the alternative isn't good for most of them. OU's making good money right now as you pointed out so I'm not sure it comes down to them being "chicken"? It is more a matter of time, than being afraid.

[Hogwild]

That's right and though Okla State might not bring as much to the table as Oklahoma, they wouldn't exactly be a "crap sandwich". It would be like adding someone like Ole Miss, Miss State or Missouri to the fold.

No, that's where I think you miscalculating.  The conference gets paid a different rate based on their imprint. The SEC gets a higher rate for the SEC network for a subscriber in South Carolina than one in California. Missouri has a population over 6 million people, Oklahoma has a population under 4 million, 33% less viewers.  Now you have to factor in once you have OU, OK State brings nothing to the table, but another mouth to feed.

CBS contract with the SEC if $55 million a year, divided by 14 schools. That would have to jump to $64 million with the addition of two schools, to be revenue neutral. As big of an draw that OU is, they won't add $9 million a year to the pot.  (Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Texas A&M... share is just below $4 million a year after the split.)

ESPN/SEC Network- once you add OU, Oklahoma is covered. OK State add zero revenue, but take a 1/16 slice of the pie.  The states like Kansas have a populations around 3 million, North Carolina 10 million, Virginia 8 million. No point in double dipping in a state, especially with a small population.

Think about it  the Big Ten. When they added Nebraska, they could have added the two Oklahoma schools, but instead they added Rutgers and Maryland.  It is and will always be about the $$$$.

[Cinco de Hogo]

If true, why didn't they push for an extension of the GOR's when they had the chance? You know that everyone not named Oklahoma or Texas probably wanted to extend the GOR's and keep the conference because the alternative isn't good for most of them. OU's making good money right now as you pointed out so I'm not sure it comes down to them being "chicken"? It is more a matter of time, than being afraid.

They did neither, push for the extension or seriously entertain moving to the SEC.  Setting on the proverbial fence might be about positioning in one conference or the other or it might be because they are afraid to commit.  I don't know the answer but I do believe they are a little afraid they will lose the status they have built over the decades if the don't win big in the SEC.

[NuttinItUp]

No, that's where I think you miscalculating.  The conference gets paid a different rate based on their imprint. The SEC gets a higher rate for the SEC network for a subscriber in South Carolina than one in California. Missouri has a population over 6 million people, Oklahoma has a population under 4 million, 33% less viewers.  Now you have to factor in once you have OU, OK State brings nothing to the table, but another mouth to feed.

CBS contract with the SEC if $55 million a year, divided by 14 schools. That would have to jump to $64 million with the addition of two schools, to be revenue neutral. As big of an draw that OU is, they won't add $9 million a year to the pot.  (Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Texas A&M... share is just below $4 million a year after the split.)

ESPN/SEC Network- once you add OU, Oklahoma is covered. OK State add zero revenue, but take a 1/16 slice of the pie.  The states like Kansas have a populations around 3 million, North Carolina 10 million, Virginia 8 million. No point in double dipping in a state, especially with a small population.

Think about it  the Big Ten. When they added Nebraska, they could have added the two Oklahoma schools, but instead they added Rutgers and Maryland.  It is and will always be about the $$$$.

^^This^^

I just always assume when someone says "footprint", that everyone knows what that means, but apparently that is not always the case.

The SEC (and all conferences for that matter) do not want to add additional members that double-up the footprint. That is why TCU (or any Texas school) isn't coming to the SEC. That is why to expand East, the SEC needs someone from the state of Virginia, North Carolina, or West Virginia, or to expand West, likely someone from Kansas or Oklahoma. (one per state, preferably, so as not to double up)


Note: Footprint might become less relevant in the age of cord-cutting, but getting schools with the biggest following will still be relevant because max eyeballs will still = max $$ even if content is streamed from Netflix or YouTube or Amazon or wherever.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Drive for footprint explains why the SEC consistently undervalues Arkansas dispite the fact that we consistantly attract more viewers to our games that more valued school from larger population areas.  We CAN & DO many times draw as well as the Floridas, Bamas, LSU, and still not get the credit for that feat.  The TV industry needs to stop selling TV sets and start selling eyes.

[Inhogswetrust]

Drive for footprint explains why the SEC consistently undervalues Arkansas dispite the fact that we consistantly attract more viewers to our games that more valued school from larger population areas.  We CAN & DO many times draw as well as the Floridas, Bamas, LSU, and still not get the credit for that feat.  The TV industry needs to stop selling TV sets and start selling eyes.

If you honestly believe that the TV industry does not know what the ratings are for teams now and over the years I have some swamp land for sale you might want.........................in a little place called the Sahara.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No, that's where I think you miscalculating.  The conference gets paid a different rate based on their imprint. The SEC gets a higher rate for the SEC network for a subscriber in South Carolina than one in California. Missouri has a population over 6 million people, Oklahoma has a population under 4 million, 33% less viewers.  Now you have to factor in once you have OU, OK State brings nothing to the table, but another mouth to feed.

CBS contract with the SEC if $55 million a year, divided by 14 schools. That would have to jump to $64 million with the addition of two schools, to be revenue neutral. As big of an draw that OU is, they won't add $9 million a year to the pot.  (Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Texas A&M... share is just below $4 million a year after the split.)

ESPN/SEC Network- once you add OU, Oklahoma is covered. OK State add zero revenue, but take a 1/16 slice of the pie.  The states like Kansas have a populations around 3 million, North Carolina 10 million, Virginia 8 million. No point in double dipping in a state, especially with a small population.

Think about it  the Big Ten. When they added Nebraska, they could have added the two Oklahoma schools, but instead they added Rutgers and Maryland.  It is and will always be about the $$$$.

I think you may be miscalculating based on numbers remaining static, they won't. Again, the value of Oklahoma on a national basis in terms of viewership is worth whatever the price would be to have Oklahoma State. The last time I checked Nielsen Ratings Oklahoma State drew as much viewership as Missouri did and that has been well over a year ago (maybe 2) when Missouri was supposed to be a hot team. So if it ends up being those two, and I don't know if it will or not, but assuming it is those two, you basically get the t.v. draw of a Alabama/Florida/Georgia/LSU and the draw of a Missouri. The problem is that sometimes when we discuss the appeal of certain teams, we think the only state where people watch them is in their own home state, and that just isn't true.

Additionally, adding Kansas is for basketball only. They have a hard time giving away tickets to Kansas football games and that is the big revenue sport. N. Carolina and Virginia don't have anything to do with this. Their GOR's don't expire until 2035-2036.

[Cinco de Hogo]

If you honestly believe that the TV industry does not know what the ratings are for teams now and over the years I have some swamp land for sale you might want.........................in a little place called the Sahara.

You post explains why you bought the swamp land in the first place and my understanding of events explains why I don't own the same. LOL!

[Mike_e]

I'm thinking (OK, I know that's dangerous) that the lack of expansion plus the lack of extension of the GOR in the disfunctional 12 is a clear signal that they are willing to break up in '25.

They saw that current landscape was too unsettled to make any moves for sure profit for the big players in their conference and the smaller players were just holding on as usual.

So, treading water may not get them ahead but it does buy them all more time.

[Hogwild]

I think you may be miscalculating based on numbers remaining static, they won't. Again, the value of Oklahoma on a national basis in terms of viewership is worth whatever the price would be to have Oklahoma State.

What are you basing that on?  If really was the case then someone Pac12, Big Ten, or SEC would have invited them both in.  Everyone has passed on taking them as a package.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I'm thinking (OK, I know that's dangerous) that the lack of expansion plus the lack of extension of the GOR in the disfunctional 12 is a clear signal that they are willing to break up in '25.

They saw that current landscape was too unsettled to make any moves for sure profit for the big players in their conference and the smaller players were just holding on as usual.

So, treading water may not get them ahead but it does buy them all more time.

I think that is exactly what is going on and it could be that they are using the excuse that "gee, we couldn't find anyone to join who would help our cause" as an excuse to dissolve the conference and move to greener pastures. It would seem that the message has been sent and now everyone has to figure out who is going to be without a chair when the music stops.

It won't be Texas, it won't be Oklahoma, it won't be Kansas because someone will snatch them up just for basketball (they are Colorado level liberal) and that might be the Pac 12, though they are a geographic fit for the Big Ten. Iowa State will probably get snatched up by the Big Ten (basketball/wrestling/Iowa rival). TCU goes where, Pac 12? That leaves Oklahoma State (goes with OU, maybe?), Baylor will be clean and clear by the time this rolls around but who takes them? The Pac 12 didn't want them last time. Then all that leaves is K-State, Texas Tech and W. Virginia. Academically I don't think that any of the three fit with the Pac 12, Big Ten or ACC. Who wants them?

[Hawghiggs]

 So who wants to figure out the value of Arkansas to the Big 12?

[Inhogswetrust]

You post explains why you bought the swamp land in the first place and my understanding of events explains why I don't own the same. LOL!

No my post is a roundabout way of saying that the TV industry DOES sell eyes. That being said the number of TV sets in an area impacts how many eyes.

[NuttinItUp]

That's right and though Okla State might not bring as much to the table as Oklahoma, they wouldn't exactly be a "crap sandwich". It would be like adding someone like Ole Miss, Miss State or Missouri to the fold.

Missouri gets a pass because they are the only relevant team in their state and they bring in the St. Louis and Kansas City markets into the footprint.

For the other two: 1) I don't believe Okie St. brings as much value as Ole Miss/Miss. St., but even if they did, then 2) in a theoretical world where the SEC did not currently contain a Mississippi school already, I don't think the SEC invites both programs.

[Cinco de Hogo]

No my post is a roundabout way of saying that the TV industry DOES sell eyes. That being said the number of TV sets in an area impacts how many eyes.

Fine but the meaning of my post was how the SEC chooses to interpret the data put out by the media vs just number of sets i.e. Population.

[Supermark101]

Apparently that wasn't the case according to this:

The Big 12's television rights deals with ESPN and FOX run through 2024-25. The league heavily flirted with expanding in 2016, mainly to capitalize on a clause that would have resulted in significant extra revenue, but ultimately decided to stand pat at 10 members after ESPN and FOX were very against the idea. The one thing holding the Big 12 together, its grant of rights deal, is scheduled to expire in 2025. Interestingly, Big 12 schools had a chance last fall to extend the grant of rights and chose not to.

They had a chance to increase revenues with expansion of the conference, but chose not to expand. That makes for an interesting turn of events and discussion as to why that was their choice?

What was the clause? The SEC had a clause that said if they expanded they could renegotiate. They did. I do not know, but it's possible the Big 12 had the same clause and thier tv partners so no more money.

People need to forget about media markets when taking about expansion. The next round of expansion will be all about creating interesting games that people will keep cable to watch. Having California or New York in your footprint means nothing if there are zero subscribers.

Where is the content coming from?  The content multipliers in football is where the money is at.  Basketball adds very little which is why Kansas announced this week they are investing $300M in football stadium renovations and practice facilities--to ensure they have a seat that the power conference table.  The B1G was their only possible option before, maybe the SEC or PAC would re-evaluate Kansas higher today.

From a TV rights standpoint, yes, basketball brings nothing, but he ACC makes a ton from the NCAA basketball tournament. Having more GOOD basketball teams has merit.

[GuvHog]

Missouri gets a pass because they are the only relevant team in their state and they bring in the St. Louis and Kansas City markets into the footprint.

For the other two: 1) I don't believe Okie St. brings as much value as Ole Miss/Miss. St., but even if they did, then 2) in a theoretical world where the SEC did not currently contain a Mississippi school already, I don't think the SEC invites both programs.

I disagree. For what the SEC would gain by getting OU, it would be well worth taking Okla State to get them. I still say the SEC will eventually take both schools.

[NuttinItUp]

People need to forget about media markets when taking about expansion. The next round of expansion will be all about creating interesting games that people will keep cable to watch.

Media markets = eyeballs
Eyeballs = $$

This is still true when people are streaming content. (post-cable)

[NuttinItUp]

I disagree. For what the SEC would gain by getting OU, it would be well worth taking Okla State to get them. I still say the SEC will eventually take both schools.

That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

I just think adding both schools and splitting the pie 2 extra ways does not bring enough benefit to existing members. (a net loss vs. a net increase)   I am certainly open to being wrong, though. My opinion isn't set in stone or anything.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

What was the clause? The SEC had a clause that said if they expanded they could renegotiate. They did. I do not know, but it's possible the big 12 had the same clause amd there tv partners so no more money.

People need to forget about media markets when taking about expansion. The next round of expansion will be all about creating interesting games that people will keep cable to watch.

I don't think that Fox and ESPN could legally have said, "no", but apparently they did voice such strong opposition to it that the Big 12 went along. Of course it could also be that when the Big 12 found such opposition to a renegotiation that it might have helped fuel their decision to not extend their GOR's? Hard to say. One thing is sure, if Texas and OU and some of the others were truly motivated to keep the conference together, if that was their primary goal, they would have done whatever was possible to bring in two of BYU, Colorado State, Cincy, Memphis, UCF or Houston to fill out the conference to 12 teams, two divisions and a legit CCG to help the conference have greater potential access to the CFP's and create greater stability for everyone involved in the conference.

[Supermark101]

Media markets = eyeballs
Eyeballs = $$

This is still true when people are streaming content. (post-cable)

Doesn't matter if you have California and New York in your footprint, if no one is watching. ESPECIALLY post cable, when you are no longer being paid per subscriber, even if they don't watch.

[NuttinItUp]

Doesn't matter if you have California and New York in your footprint, if no one is watching. ESPECIALLY post cable, when you are no longer being paid per subscriber, even if they don't watch.

The point is, if you have more people interested in your program, then you will have more people watching your games.

Whether people are paying to stream through Netflix or Amazon or YouTube or wherever, the more eyeballs you have on your  team (conference), the more $$ that means.