OU to SEC Realignment Thread-Updated 7-26-15

[Murr]

I don't think that Boren can expend that kind of political capital again just to be made to look like a fool again.  Something's happened.  OU is having trouble selling tickets and raising money, sure, but somebody had a conversation somewhere.  Something triggered David Boren spitting out his burnt orange ball gag in public.  But what was it?

Recruiting.

A&M grabbing players OU and Texas used to get

[Murr]

Kansas.  I don't see them leaving g B12 unless Texas leaves.  KU would have to give up the annual B12 tourney in Kansas City as well as being a junior member in the B1G for about 7 years.

If OU is added, SEC should look easy at VT and then NC State.  Heck, go to 18 with those three and WVU.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Memphis. Easy add-ons, good schools for football and basketball and it would be the easiest step up for those two schools from their current level to a P-5 conference and it helps out the WVa situation of being regionally removed from the rest of the conference. This way the conference survives, they expand their television footprint and OU and Texas continue to rule the roost. Additionally, I think Cincinnati and Memphis would jump at the opportunity.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Memphis. Easy add-ons, good schools for football and basketball and it would be the easiest step up for those two schools from their current level to a P-5 conference and it helps out the WVa situation of being regionally removed from the rest of the conference. This way the conference survives, they expand their television footprint and OU and Texas continue to rule the roost. Additionally, I think Cincinnati and Memphis would jump at the opportunity.

Probably the most sensible thing or close to it.  Colorado Stste is out there too and in a good market.  They would get a lot more support if in a major conference.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Probably the most sensible thing or close to it.  Colorado Stste is out there too and in a good market.  They would get a lot more support if in a major conference.

I think that if they are going to add teams they need to go easterly or perhaps stand a chance of losing WVa in the future. There was a lot of chatter about them adding BYU and Boise (two more easy add-ons) but if they did that, they might as well consider adding Colorado State because WVa might say, "no mas". Adding to the West would create nothing but bigger travel problems for WVa than they have now.

But going easterly, they retain WVa and build into markets in which they haven't been before which encroaches even further into the Ohio/Pennsylvania and Kentucky/Tennessee markets.

Going west they would add a lot of folks who watch BYU and some who would have interest in Boise and adding Colorado State they might gain more interest in the western half of the country, but it isn't in the more populous states or with schools who might carry a lot of cable viewership (except BYU).

The East, IMO, is the way to go and it not only encompasses areas of greater population density, but it expands their recruiting areas to a larger degree.

[Gonzo]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Memphis. Easy add-ons, good schools for football and basketball and it would be the easiest step up for those two schools from their current level to a P-5 conference and it helps out the WVa situation of being regionally removed from the rest of the conference. This way the conference survives, they expand their television footprint and OU and Texas continue to rule the roost. Additionally, I think Cincinnati and Memphis would jump at the opportunity.

I doubt the Big 12 would look at Memphis and Cincinnati as TV enhancements. Neither is a large market (48th and 34th respectively) and both schools are more local than regional, ala Tennessee or Ohio St. No offense to either school or fanbase, but if that's the best the Big 12 can do, I think it's pretty well on a deadend already. I think the 3 or 4 regional draws will split before long and the conference will go the way of CUSA and the Big East


Go Hogs!

[jbcarol]

AL.com sports ‏@aldotcomSports 3h3 hours ago

Oklahoma to the SEC? Yes, please. (Take our poll) http://ow.ly/P6WIY

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I doubt the Big 12 would look at Memphis and Cincinnati as TV enhancements. Neither is a large market (48th and 34th respectively) and both schools are more local than regional, ala Tennessee or Ohio St. No offense to either school or fanbase, but if that's the best the Big 12 can do, I think it's pretty well on a deadend already. I think the 3 or 4 regional draws will split before long and the conference will go the way of CUSA and the Big East


Go Hogs!

It moves them into areas in which they haven't been before and, if those two schools are playing bigger, P-5 schools as a part of their conference, folks are going to watch. The Big 12 doesn't have the option to add anyone of current P-5 notoriety,  in the near future anyway. They have to help WVa to some extent or plan on losing them at some point and for that reason, they can't go west to expand.

Both schools make a lot of sense for the current Big 12 IF, they truly want to survive. The other choice is to go west and pick up BYU, Boise and Colorado State and eventually lose WVa. If they are to survive at all, I think they go East.

And for those stuck on the thought of Oklahoma to the SEC, just remember, they aren't going anywhere without Oklahoma State. It has always been a package deal, unless things have changed and I don't think that is happening. Too much politics at play.

[Hawghiggs]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Memphis. Easy add-ons, good schools for football and basketball and it would be the easiest step up for those two schools from their current level to a P-5 conference and it helps out the WVa situation of being regionally removed from the rest of the conference. This way the conference survives, they expand their television footprint and OU and Texas continue to rule the roost. Additionally, I think Cincinnati and Memphis would jump at the opportunity.

I think Cincy would be great. But if I'm the Big 12. I would add  Colorado state and New Mexico first. Good markets and regional. There is nothing that the Big 12 can really do to stop Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas from leaving. The only thing that the Big 12 can do. Is make sure they control a region of the country. This might keep them as a P5 conference, or at least keep them from being an after thought.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

  I think Cincy would be great. But if I'm the Big 12. I would add  Colorado state and New Mexico first. Good markets and regional. There is nothing that the Big 12 can really do to stop Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas from leaving. The only thing that the Big 12 can do. Is make sure they control a region of the country. This might keep them as a P5 conference, or at least keep them from being an after thought.

New Mexico? Seriously? Why not McNeese State or N. Dakota State?

[Inhogswetrust]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Big 12 add Cincinnati and Memphis. Easy add-ons, good schools for football and basketball and it would be the easiest step up for those two schools from their current level to a P-5 conference and it helps out the WVa situation of being regionally removed from the rest of the conference. This way the conference survives, they expand their television footprint and OU and Texas continue to rule the roost. Additionally, I think Cincinnati and Memphis would jump at the opportunity.

I live in Memphis. Believe me they are not even close to a good football school. Basketball is also not good lately but they do have a good history with it at least.

[Inhogswetrust]

Probably the most sensible thing or close to it.  Colorado Stste is out there too and in a good market.  They would get a lot more support if in a major conference.

CSU would be better than Memphis by adding a more geographic fit for teams such as KSU, ISU, TTU. However IF the little 12 lost WVU they would then need to try to get three teams to get back to twelve instead of only two. THEN maybe Memphis would be a better possibility. IF they lose WVU then there options are getting more limited as far as potential good "draws".

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I live in Memphis. Believe me they are not even close to a good football school. Basketball is also not good lately but they do have a good history with it at least.

Problem the Big 12 has, is that they have to do something to help out their current member W. Virginia and adding a couple of respectable though not great teams in Cincy and Memphis, accomplishes that. Adding Colorado State, while geographically more relevant to the majority of the Big 12 (which I think would still be a good addition in the absence of W. Virginia's needs) does nothing to shore up the far flung eastern member, W. Virginia. Seems like you guys keep overlooking this need. They either help them by adding teams in the east or end up losing them at some point, but I already addressed this several times above.

[Inhogswetrust]

Problem the Big 12 has, is that they have to do something to help out their current member W. Virginia and adding a couple of respectable though not great teams in Cincy and Memphis, accomplishes that. Adding Colorado State, while geographically more relevant to the majority of the Big 12 (which I think would still be a good addition in the absence of W. Virginia's needs) does nothing to shore up the far flung eastern member, W. Virginia. Seems like you guys keep overlooking this need. They either help them by adding teams in the east or end up losing them at some point, but I already addressed this several times above.

I agree WVU being an outlier makes someone else close to them a more pressing CURRENT need. However I was assuming for this discussion that WVU would leave the little12. IF they don't then it changes my possible thinking. IF they stay with the little 12 then Cincy and Memphis makes more sense geographically for WVU. However at that point I would still go with Cincy and CSU.

[Hawghiggs]

New Mexico? Seriously? Why not McNeese State or N. Dakota State?

Yeah New Mexico. Flagship University with a student enrollment of 34k and 36th largest state. Albuquerque is the 32nd largest city and home to the New Mexico bowl. Which would help bring in much needed revenue.  The Lobos have a solid basketball program and play football in a 40k stadium. The Big 12 needs to invest in Colorado state and New Mexico. Because what is left to choose from is nothing more than rehashed Big East teams.

[Inhogswetrust]

Yeah New Mexico. Flagship University with a student enrollment of 34k and 36th largest state. Albuquerque is the 32nd largest city and home to the New Mexico bowl. Which would help bring in much needed revenue.  The Lobos have a solid basketball program and play football in a 40k stadium. The Big 12 needs to invest in Colorado state and New Mexico. Because what is left to choose from is nothing more than rehashed Big East teams.

They only need about 20,000 of those seats though. Here is attendance for 2014 from the DailyLobo.com:

UNM averaged 21,937 fans per game in 2014, which ranked seventh of the 12 Mountain West teams.

They have NEVER drawn good in football. IF the Pit were big enough then the basketball team might actually outdraw the football team...........think about that for a minute!

[Hawghiggs]

They only need about 20,000 of those seats though. Here is attendance for 2014 from the DailyLobo.com:

UNM averaged 21,937 fans per game in 2014, which ranked seventh of the 12 Mountain West teams.

They have NEVER drawn good in football. IF the Pit were big enough then the basketball team might actually outdraw the football team………..think about that for a minute!

They have never been in  a conference with quality programs. So its hard to grow support when you are only bringing in programs weaker than yourself.  Which is much of the MWC. But being in a city with a half a million people. The Lobos could quickly turn it around. Another thing that you mentioned is basketball. When all the quality programs bolt the Big 12 conference. They are going to need someone to help keep up the quality of basketball being played.

[Aggie96]

Having the Aggy's puts the SEC channel in homes across Texas, that's great but does no good if the west half of the state never watches it.  Adding Texas would change that and would increase our payout.  I would love to play the Whorns every year but only if they are just another memeber of the conference and play by the same rules.

That's not how it works. Sorry for the long read, but it needs to be said.

59% of US households subscribe to basic cable. Each channel charges a "carriage fee"which make up a portion of each subscribers bill. An example is ESPN, which charges a carriage fee of $5.40. That means each of of the 98 million subscribers pay $5.40 for ESPN specifically as a portion of their bill for a gross revenue of over $6BB annually.

Crucially, it's important to note that it does not matter if you watch ESPN. Grandmother Sue in Marfa, Texas and her cable subscription pays ESPN $5.40 per month regardless as to whether or not she turns on the channel.

The SEC Network, like ESPN, has a carriage fee. However, unlike ESPN, there are 2 separate carriage fees. I don't know the exact figures at the present, but a cable subscriber in a state outside the SEC footprint (read: in a state without an SEC member school) pays something like $0.25 per month for the channel. Cable subscribers in states with SEC member schools are charged more than 5X that, or about $1.30 per month per subscriber.

Similar to ESPN and Grandmother Sue, it does not matter if the people within that state all want to watch the school play or not. All that matters is that it is popular enough within that state to carry the higher of the 2 carriage charges. And what cable providers know (and what ESPN knows) is that providers will have to carry the SEC network in nearly all states because of the popularity of the league, and the addition of a school within that footprint will almost always justify the increase of the cost.

So where does that leave your analysis about who the SEC will add next? The addition of Mizzou and A&M increased the "within footprint" from like 20MM to 30MM. That means A&M and Mizzou added an additional $126,000,000 in annual gross revenue (calculated as the difference between the carriage fees for in-footprint sets monthly over 10,000,000 sets). Currently, something like 65,000,000 homes have access to the SEC network. The average gross works out to about $1.00 per subscriber when you combine both footprints.

That additional revenue more than makes up for the additional pie slices A&M and Mizzou will receive.

Now consider adding Texas to the mix. The addition of UT would increase the value of the brand, so let's say it makes the network 1.5% more valuable. That means the carriage fees go from $1.30/0.25 to 1.32/0.257 respectively. It doesn't increase subscribership significantly enough to calculate that change. So let's say then that the value of the SECN in the aggregate goes from 1.00 per subscriber per month to $1.015 per subscriber per month. That means the gross revenue goes from about 780 million to 791 million, or an increase of about 11MM. Now consider that in return, Texas gets 1/15th of the net revenue. Doesn't make sense to add Texas, because even if they increase the brand, they don't increase it enough to offset the fact that their addition doesn't "activate" the higher carriage fee for new viewers while further increasing the number of slices of the net revenue pie.

Now consider OU versus North Carolina or Virginia. Any reasonable person would concede that OU as a football property is more valuable than any of the Carolina or Virginian schools when it comes to football prestige. But is it more valuable than them in terms of money?

I don't have the time or inclination to find cable TV subscription rates in those states, but I can pull up population. Oklahoma is home to 3.8 million people according to the last census. Virgina has 8.3 million, and North Carolina has 9.9 million.

Let's further presume that subscription rates are equivalent to the national average (60% coverage). That means the following in terms of potential subscribers to the SEC network:

OK - 2.28MM
VA - 4.98MM
NC - 5.94MM

Let's assume that 2/3 of those subscribers currently get the SEC Network.

That means the following in terms of additional money to the SEC by moving those subscribers to higher carriage fees:

OK - (2.28MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 18.96MM annually
VA - (4.98MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 41.41MM annually
NC - (5.94MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 49.39MM annually

Of course, these are figures that are made up (even if reasonably so), but it's easy to see why VTech (or Virginia) and North Carolina (or even NC State) are more money valuable to the SEC than OU.

Toss in the complications of bringing in OkSU, and you get additional revenue of 18.96MM and 2 new mouths to feed from the community pie.

So, in summation, and speaking strictly from a monetary sense:

UT is not valuable to the SEC from a financial standpoint. OU, while valuable, is not even half as valuable as any of the Virginia or North Carolina properties.

So when it comes to voting, do you as a member school agree to invite OU over a school like VTech because it increases the notoriety of the brand at the expense of several tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate, of which your own particular school is owed 1/16th of the net?

[reddogjcss]

Texas wanting it all and keep the rest down so they can beat them has yet crashed another conference.
Out to SEC is fine but no fexas short horns

[lefty08]

There's no way they're going to put 5 of the 6 traditional SEC football powers in one division.

Had they done that in 92 they wouldn't be powers anymore. But I think you are right

[NaturalStateReb]

I go back to the fact that adding mid-majors doesn't really fix the Big 12's problems.  It's just stuffing the Titanic's holes full of trash.

[Hawghiggs]

I go back to the fact that adding mid-majors doesn't really fix the Big 12's problems.  It's just stuffing the Titanic's holes full of trash.

Maybe. But what are they supposed to do? The Big12 could lose up to 5 programs the next go around. If the conference dissolves. So does all the television and bowl contracts. The commissioner of the Big 12 cannot allow that to happen. By expanding with programs like CSU, Houston, and New Mexico. The commissioner can at least sell the networks on regional bowl match ups and television markets.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I think in the end it may come down to what the other conferences want.  Do they want the B12 to survive or not.  Are they going to let it play out and each conference keep pecking away at the B12 or are they going to try and solidify all five conferences.

Maybe the answer is in the playoff.  If they keep it at four teams for long that might say that eventually they just want a P4.

[Cinco de Hogo]

That's not how it works. Sorry for the long read, but it needs to be said.

59% of US households subscribe to basic cable. Each channel charges a "carriage fee"which make up a portion of each subscribers bill. An example is ESPN, which charges a carriage fee of $5.40. That means each of of the 98 million subscribers pay $5.40 for ESPN specifically as a portion of their bill for a gross revenue of over $6BB annually.

Crucially, it's important to note that it does not matter if you watch ESPN. Grandmother Sue in Marfa, Texas and her cable subscription pays ESPN $5.40 per month regardless as to whether or not she turns on the channel.

The SEC Network, like ESPN, has a carriage fee. However, unlike ESPN, there are 2 separate carriage fees. I don't know the exact figures at the present, but a cable subscriber in a state outside the SEC footprint (read: in a state without an SEC member school) pays something like $0.25 per month for the channel. Cable subscribers in states with SEC member schools are charged more than 5X that, or about $1.30 per month per subscriber.

Similar to ESPN and Grandmother Sue, it does not matter if the people within that state all want to watch the school play or not. All that matters is that it is popular enough within that state to carry the higher of the 2 carriage charges. And what cable providers know (and what ESPN knows) is that providers will have to carry the SEC network in nearly all states because of the popularity of the league, and the addition of a school within that footprint will almost always justify the increase of the cost.

So where does that leave your analysis about who the SEC will add next? The addition of Mizzou and A&M increased the "within footprint" from like 20MM to 30MM. That means A&M and Mizzou added an additional $126,000,000 in annual gross revenue (calculated as the difference between the carriage fees for in-footprint sets monthly over 10,000,000 sets). Currently, something like 65,000,000 homes have access to the SEC network. The average gross works out to about $1.00 per subscriber when you combine both footprints.

That additional revenue more than makes up for the additional pie slices A&M and Mizzou will receive.

Now consider adding Texas to the mix. The addition of UT would increase the value of the brand, so let's say it makes the network 1.5% more valuable. That means the carriage fees go from $1.30/0.25 to 1.32/0.257 respectively. It doesn't increase subscribership significantly enough to calculate that change. So let's say then that the value of the SECN in the aggregate goes from 1.00 per subscriber per month to $1.015 per subscriber per month. That means the gross revenue goes from about 780 million to 791 million, or an increase of about 11MM. Now consider that in return, Texas gets 1/15th of the net revenue. Doesn't make sense to add Texas, because even if they increase the brand, they don't increase it enough to offset the fact that their addition doesn't "activate" the higher carriage fee for new viewers while further increasing the number of slices of the net revenue pie.

Now consider OU versus North Carolina or Virginia. Any reasonable person would concede that OU as a football property is more valuable than any of the Carolina or Virginian schools when it comes to football prestige. But is it more valuable than them in terms of money?

I don't have the time or inclination to find cable TV subscription rates in those states, but I can pull up population. Oklahoma is home to 3.8 million people according to the last census. Virgina has 8.3 million, and North Carolina has 9.9 million.

Let's further presume that subscription rates are equivalent to the national average (60% coverage). That means the following in terms of potential subscribers to the SEC network:

OK - 2.28MM
VA - 4.98MM
NC - 5.94MM

Let's assume that 2/3 of those subscribers currently get the SEC Network.

That means the following in terms of additional money to the SEC by moving those subscribers to higher carriage fees:

OK - (2.28MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 18.96MM annually
VA - (4.98MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 41.41MM annually
NC - (5.94MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 49.39MM annually

Of course, these are figures that are made up (even if reasonably so), but it's easy to see why VTech (or Virginia) and North Carolina (or even NC State) are more money valuable to the SEC than OU.

Toss in the complications of bringing in OkSU, and you get additional revenue of 18.96MM and 2 new mouths to feed from the community pie.

So, in summation, and speaking strictly from a monetary sense:

UT is not valuable to the SEC from a financial standpoint. OU, while valuable, is not even half as valuable as any of the Virginia or North Carolina properties.

So when it comes to voting, do you as a member school agree to invite OU over a school like VTech because it increases the notoriety of the brand at the expense of several tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate, of which your own particular school is owed 1/16th of the net?

Your right that is a long post, now let's boil it down to a simple question.

Can or will the SEC acquire one or more of the ACC teams you mentioned?

I think that is why not much is said about that possibility, because most simply don't think the likelihood is that high.

[Aggie96]

I see your point, this public move by OU could start up another round of Realignment concerns around the country and the more people talk about those schools, the more their fans will start to think "hmmmm why not?"

The other thing you have to consider here is that that additional 18MM that would be added would be if we add one or both of the mobilehoma schools. They are joined at the hip and I highly doubt that we would be able to take just the land thieves without Okie light. So the pie is going to be cut even further and I just don't see very many of the existing schools taking a cut in pay to add them. They bring nothing else to the table for us.
Certainly not a fertile recruiting bed, if anything it will cut even more into the areas that you already took a hit in when we joined and for sure they bring nothing academic to the table.

So would you as a fan of Arkansas want to take an annual pay cut AND lose more in recruiting?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I go back to the fact that adding mid-majors doesn't really fix the Big 12's problems.  It's just stuffing the Titanic's holes full of trash.

Maybe it doesn't fix all of their problems but it is either go that route or lose the whole conference eventually. Maybe not today, but at some point it is certainly possible. Probably depends on what the future goals of the conference power players are more than anything else.

They are hamstrung by two things, the obvious current instability of the conference (what P-5 school wants to throw-in with them under these circumstances?), and what P-5 school is nearby that they could add? Well, we know that won't be Missouri, Arkansas, LSU or Texas A&M. But rumors are out there that they making overtures to Nebraska to move back to the Big 12. Think that might happen? I don't. And neither will Colorado come back to the Big 12 (if they have any sense at all).

So who else do they easily add in the short term except for teams that aren't currently a P-5 member?

Colorado State looks like a viable candidate with the renovation of their facilities and the building of a new 60-65,000 seat stadium. But going west does nothing to fix the current regional imbalance of the conference and only serves to further alienate W. Virginia from a travel standpoint.

Frankly, they have no choice but to dip into the ranks of non P-5 schools to shore up their structural problem and if they do choose to expand, I just can't see them doing anything but adding teams from the east to help their most easterly member, W. Virginia. I think that could be Cincy and Memphis, but who else could they add that clusters more around W. Virginia if not those two? I don't have an answer for that.

[Aggie96]

Maybe it doesn't fix all of their problems but it is either go that route or lose the whole conference eventually. Maybe not today, but at some point it is certainly possible. Probably depends on what the future goals of the conference power players are more than anything else.

They are hamstrung by two things, the obvious current instability of the conference (what P-5 school wants to throw-in with them under these circumstances?), and what P-5 school is nearby that they could add? Well, we know that won't be Missouri, Arkansas, LSU or Texas A&M. But rumors are out there that they making overtures to Nebraska to move back to the Big 12. Think that might happen? I don't. And neither will Colorado come back to the Big 12 (if they have any sense at all).

So who else do they easily add in the short term except for teams that aren't currently a P-5 member?

Colorado State looks like a viable candidate with the renovation of their facilities and the building of a new 60-65,000 seat stadium. But going west does nothing to fix the current regional imbalance of the conference and only serves to further alienate W. Virginia from a travel standpoint.

Frankly, they have no choice but to dip into the ranks of non P-5 schools to shore up their structural problem and if they do choose to expand, I just can't see them doing anything but adding teams from the east to help their most easterly member, W. Virginia. I think that could be Cincy and Memphis, but who else could they add that clusters more around W. Virginia if not those two? I don't have an answer for that.

Agreed. Nebraska and Colorado will not come back to the Bevo 12, no way, no how

[GuvHog]

leave Misery in east add OU and Kansas. Let Misery and Kansas go back to their rivalry give AR Auburn as rival, give OU Georgia as its rival. Kansas would help the sec in basketball more than football but at least then we get a better game for a rival and can get rid of the border war or whatever its called.

I could be wrong (I'm good at that) but it's my understanding that Missouri agreed to be a part of the SEC East on a temporary basis with the assurances of being moved to the SEC West in the near future so I seriously doubt they'll stay in the east if/when further SEC expansion occurs.

[JaketheSnake]

That's not how it works. Sorry for the long read, but it needs to be said.

59% of US households subscribe to basic cable. Each channel charges a "carriage fee"which make up a portion of each subscribers bill. An example is ESPN, which charges a carriage fee of $5.40. That means each of of the 98 million subscribers pay $5.40 for ESPN specifically as a portion of their bill for a gross revenue of over $6BB annually.

Crucially, it's important to note that it does not matter if you watch ESPN. Grandmother Sue in Marfa, Texas and her cable subscription pays ESPN $5.40 per month regardless as to whether or not she turns on the channel.

The SEC Network, like ESPN, has a carriage fee. However, unlike ESPN, there are 2 separate carriage fees. I don't know the exact figures at the present, but a cable subscriber in a state outside the SEC footprint (read: in a state without an SEC member school) pays something like $0.25 per month for the channel. Cable subscribers in states with SEC member schools are charged more than 5X that, or about $1.30 per month per subscriber.

Similar to ESPN and Grandmother Sue, it does not matter if the people within that state all want to watch the school play or not. All that matters is that it is popular enough within that state to carry the higher of the 2 carriage charges. And what cable providers know (and what ESPN knows) is that providers will have to carry the SEC network in nearly all states because of the popularity of the league, and the addition of a school within that footprint will almost always justify the increase of the cost.

So where does that leave your analysis about who the SEC will add next? The addition of Mizzou and A&M increased the "within footprint" from like 20MM to 30MM. That means A&M and Mizzou added an additional $126,000,000 in annual gross revenue (calculated as the difference between the carriage fees for in-footprint sets monthly over 10,000,000 sets). Currently, something like 65,000,000 homes have access to the SEC network. The average gross works out to about $1.00 per subscriber when you combine both footprints.

That additional revenue more than makes up for the additional pie slices A&M and Mizzou will receive.

Now consider adding Texas to the mix. The addition of UT would increase the value of the brand, so let's say it makes the network 1.5% more valuable. That means the carriage fees go from $1.30/0.25 to 1.32/0.257 respectively. It doesn't increase subscribership significantly enough to calculate that change. So let's say then that the value of the SECN in the aggregate goes from 1.00 per subscriber per month to $1.015 per subscriber per month. That means the gross revenue goes from about 780 million to 791 million, or an increase of about 11MM. Now consider that in return, Texas gets 1/15th of the net revenue. Doesn't make sense to add Texas, because even if they increase the brand, they don't increase it enough to offset the fact that their addition doesn't "activate" the higher carriage fee for new viewers while further increasing the number of slices of the net revenue pie.

Now consider OU versus North Carolina or Virginia. Any reasonable person would concede that OU as a football property is more valuable than any of the Carolina or Virginian schools when it comes to football prestige. But is it more valuable than them in terms of money?

I don't have the time or inclination to find cable TV subscription rates in those states, but I can pull up population. Oklahoma is home to 3.8 million people according to the last census. Virgina has 8.3 million, and North Carolina has 9.9 million.

Let's further presume that subscription rates are equivalent to the national average (60% coverage). That means the following in terms of potential subscribers to the SEC network:

OK - 2.28MM
VA - 4.98MM
NC - 5.94MM

Let's assume that 2/3 of those subscribers currently get the SEC Network.

That means the following in terms of additional money to the SEC by moving those subscribers to higher carriage fees:

OK - (2.28MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 18.96MM annually
VA - (4.98MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 41.41MM annually
NC - (5.94MM * 0.66) * (1.30-0.25) * 12 = 49.39MM annually

Of course, these are figures that are made up (even if reasonably so), but it's easy to see why VTech (or Virginia) and North Carolina (or even NC State) are more money valuable to the SEC than OU.

Toss in the complications of bringing in OkSU, and you get additional revenue of 18.96MM and 2 new mouths to feed from the community pie.

So, in summation, and speaking strictly from a monetary sense:

UT is not valuable to the SEC from a financial standpoint. OU, while valuable, is not even half as valuable as any of the Virginia or North Carolina properties.

So when it comes to voting, do you as a member school agree to invite OU over a school like VTech because it increases the notoriety of the brand at the expense of several tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate, of which your own particular school is owed 1/16th of the net?

So forget WVU.  They dont add squat monetarily.  The SEC $wise would be better off going hard after Pitt or Temple.  They may not fit culturally though.

[Inhogswetrust]

  They have never been in  a conference with quality programs. So its hard to grow support when you are only bringing in programs weaker than yourself.  Which is much of the MWC. But being in a city with a half a million people. The Lobos could quickly turn it around. Another thing that you mentioned is basketball. When all the quality programs bolt the Big 12 conference. They are going to need someone to help keep up the quality of basketball being played.

Still doesn't explain WHY a "flagship" school with only two large universities in the whole state and in a decent sized metro area would only draw the 7TH highest in the Mountain West Conference. The Lobo's would have a HUGE struggle to turn it around. Football is not the king of sports in NM. Why keep talking about basketball like it is the reason these expansions are taking place. It isn't. It is only a second thought in the realignment issue.

[Inhogswetrust]

Maybe. But what are they supposed to do? The Big12 could lose up to 5 programs the next go around. If the conference dissolves. So does all the television and bowl contracts. The commissioner of the Big 12 cannot allow that to happen. By expanding with programs like CSU, Houston, and New Mexico. The commissioner can at least sell the networks on regional bowl match ups and television markets.

I'd bet IF the little 12 lost as many as in the way this discussion is mentioning then the commissioner would be out of a job and he doesn't have the power anyway to potentially save it as a power conference.

[Dominicanhog]

I'd bet IF the little 12 lost as many as in the way this discussion is mentioning then the commissioner would be out of a job and he doesn't have the power anyway to potentially save it as a power conference.

Pac 12 gets the cream, Mount. West picks up the pieces... WVU goes ACC.  He's out of a job...

[Hawghiggs]

Still doesn't explain WHY a "flagship" school with only two large universities in the whole state and in a decent sized metro area would only draw the 7TH highest in the Mountain West Conference. The Lobo's would have a HUGE struggle to turn it around. Football is not the king of sports in NM. Why keep talking about basketball like it is the reason these expansions are taking place. It isn't. It is only a second thought in the realignment issue.

Sure it does. How much of the fan base would have eroded here in Arkansas if we would have never gotten into the SEC and had been left out of the formation of the Big12? With no marketable opponents. The Lobos have a hard time gaining and keeping traction as a must watch priority during the fall. As for basketball. You have to talk about it. There are really only two sports that really generate revenue in college sports. Those NCAA credits bring a lot of revenue to a conference. Now they might not bring as much as football. But the Lobos would bring the New Mexico bowl with them to the Big 12. It might be a minor bowl. But it still is a bowl game.

[Hawghiggs]

Pac 12 gets the cream, Mount. West picks up the pieces... WVU goes ACC.  He's out of a job...

The Big 12 would raid the MWC. The Big 12 has signed contracts for better network deals and bowl games.

[Dominicanhog]

The Big 12 would raid the MWC. The Big 12 has signed contracts for better network deals and bowl games.

there is nothing in the M. West worth raiding.. the B12 is dead men walking...

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Sure it does. How much of the fan base would have eroded here in Arkansas if we would have never gotten into the SEC and had been left out of the formation of the Big12? With no marketable opponents. The Lobos have a hard time gaining and keeping traction as a must watch priority during the fall. As for basketball. You have to talk about it. There are really only two sports that really generate revenue in college sports. Those NCAA credits bring a lot of revenue to a conference. Now they might not bring as much as football. But the Lobos would bring the New Mexico bowl with them to the Big 12. It might be a minor bowl. But it still is a bowl game.

The last 10 years New Mexico has gone 39-83 (.319). That's worse than the annual Big 12 doormat Kansas, and I didn't think that was possible. And at least Kansas has top notch basketball, so they contribute something to the Big 12. No one is going to even consider inviting New Mexico.

[rhames]

there is nothing in the M. West worth raiding.. the B12 is dead men walking...

No one was even talking about this until coward I believe said something about it Oklahoma coming to the sec


What makes you think this? 



This thread is a prime example of group think at its worst.



Is the big 12 losing money? I mean other than them having ten teams what makes them a "dead man walking"

[Dominicanhog]

The last 10 years New Mexico has gone 39-83 (.319). That's worse than the annual Big 12 doormat Kansas, and I didn't think that was possible. And at least Kansas has top notch basketball, so they contribute something to the Big 12. No one is going to even consider inviting New Mexico.

I think that is one of their better decades... Bevo's arrogance has left the B12 with not a lot of good options.... Imo, if they had a hard time sharing with Nebraska, Mizzu and ATM, there's no way they're going to share with CSU, UH, BYU, NMx or any of these schools... they are going to the Pac12, they just haven't accepted that reality yet... The SEC will take something if they want it, maybe the B1G, but there is not enough talent left to support the B12 and especially Bevo's arrogance.
The next round of TV contracts will entice movement.. we just got 30 something mill from our SEC connection, no way we would take less to give to New Mexico State...

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No one was even talking about this until coward I believe said something about it Oklahoma coming to the sec


What makes you think this? 



This thread is a prime example of group think at its worst.



Is the big 12 losing money? I mean other than them having ten teams what makes them a "dead man walking"

They aren't "DMW" right now, they may be in the future. And there would have been little talk of this or their expansion had Oklahoma President David Boren not stated last week that they needed to find expansion teams.

[Dominicanhog]

No one was even talking about this until coward I believe said something about it Oklahoma coming to the sec


What makes you think this? 



This thread is a prime example of group think at its worst.



Is the big 12 losing money? I mean other than them having ten teams what makes them a "dead man walking"

Money will make the difference.. when they don't make as much as a team from Pac12, SEC or B1G they will explore options... there are no good options for expansion, so imo, they will have defections looking for greener pastures.... If you were a network would you pay as much for the B12  contract? 

[Hawghiggs]

The last 10 years New Mexico has gone 39-83 (.319). That's worse than the annual Big 12 doormat Kansas, and I didn't think that was possible. And at least Kansas has top notch basketball, so they contribute something to the Big 12. No one is going to even consider inviting New Mexico.

That's why I posted that New Mexico would be an investment. The Big 12 doesn't have a single homerun candidate that would be a fix all for the conference. Adding a AAC team isn't really going to help. Most of those programs have been left out for a reason. Building with programs like Colorado state, Houston, and New Mexico are a least regional and would help solidify the Big 12 footprint for a possible network.

[Torqued pork]

Is BYU to the BIG XII a totally lost cause? I know the Cougars don't play sports on Sundays, but if I'm at a school such as KSU or ISU, I'm absolutely begging Texas and OU to do whatever it would take to make it happen.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Is BYU to the BIG XII a totally lost cause? I know the Cougars don't play sports on Sundays, but if I'm at a school such as KSU or ISU, I'm absolutely begging Texas and OU to do whatever it would take to make it happen.

And W. Virginia is praying that they won't.

[Inhogswetrust]

Sure it does. How much of the fan base would have eroded here in Arkansas if we would have never gotten into the SEC and had been left out of the formation of the Big12? With no marketable opponents. The Lobos have a hard time gaining and keeping traction as a must watch priority during the fall. As for basketball. You have to talk about it. There are really only two sports that really generate revenue in college sports. Those NCAA credits bring a lot of revenue to a conference. Now they might not bring as much as football. But the Lobos would bring the New Mexico bowl with them to the Big 12. It might be a minor bowl. But it still is a bowl game.

You are forgetting we already HAD a large football fan base before getting in the SEC. NM never has had one. Also don't assume we would have been left out of the Big12 /SWC merger. I'd bet we would not have been. I agree you have to at least have basketball in the conversation but it is not the deciding factor. All other sports matter to some degree. In that respect Arkansas had and still has a MUCH bigger and successful overall program than NM. Minor bowl games are not the deciding factor and really don't matter near as much as you think basketball does. Besides does the Lobo's own the New Mexico Bowl. If not then they wouldn't have any way of telling a potential new conference they would get that bowl as a part of their conference affiliation.

[Dominicanhog]

And W. Virginia is praying that they won't.

I think they end up in the ACC when all is said and done.

[Hawghiggs]

I think they end up in the ACC when all is said and done.

That's not going to happen. The ACC could have chosen WVU last go around but didn't due to West Virginias poor academics.

[Oklahawg]

This will be a perennial off-season topic until we hit 4 super conferences. It is fascinating to read Boren's words - ever the politician, he is ango big for something here.

In a world filled with 80K+ stadiums in the ACC, B1G and SEC I would not think that the Big 12 can do much to retain OU and UT short of adding a school that sells out one of those mega stadiums.

Thus, I think that OU is as likely to try to land OSU in the PAC 12 and go to the SEC as they are to try and recruit Cincy and Memphis. OU and UT to the SEC and they will let others fend for themselves. OU and OSU have to land on their feet or they will sTay tethered politically.

[Inhogswetrust]

This will be a perennial off-season topic until we hit 4 super conferences. It is fascinating to read Boren's words - ever the politician, he is ango big for something here.

In a world filled with 80K+ stadiums in the ACC, B1G and SEC I would not think that the Big 12 can do much to retain OU and UT short of adding a school that sells out one of those mega stadiums.

Thus, I think that OU is as likely to try to land OSU in the PAC 12 and go to the SEC as they are to try and recruit Cincy and Memphis. OU and UT to the SEC and they will let others fend for themselves. OU and OSU have to land on their feet or they will sTay tethered politically.

You mention something that some on here may not know or remember.............Boren was a big politician in Oklahoma BEFORE he became OU President. IF anyone can maneuver the political land mines to "untether" OU and OSU it is him.

[GuvHog]

This will be a perennial off-season topic until we hit 4 super conferences. It is fascinating to read Boren's words - ever the politician, he is ango big for something here.

In a world filled with 80K+ stadiums in the ACC, B1G and SEC I would not think that the Big 12 can do much to retain OU and UT short of adding a school that sells out one of those mega stadiums.

Thus, I think that OU is as likely to try to land OSU in the PAC 12 and go to the SEC as they are to try and recruit Cincy and Memphis. OU and UT to the SEC and they will let others fend for themselves. OU and OSU have to land on their feet or they will sTay tethered politically.

I still believe Texas will eventually jump to the PAC 12. They would have to give up the Longhorn Network to become a part of the SEC and I don't see them agreeing to do that.

[Oklahawg]

You mention something that some on here may not know or remember.............Boren was a big politician in Oklahoma BEFORE he became OU President. IF anyone can maneuver the political land mines to "untether" OU and OSU it is him.

Boren was a "yellow dog" democrat, one of those that was enrolled as a democrat but was highly conservative - democrat to get elected when that was the thing to do in SE OK. Burns Hargis, president of OSU, is a similarly conservative democrat who was once in OK politics. I suspect they are well-connected on this issue and will proceed in tandem...of some variety.

Said differently, unlike Texas where the population base is large enough to have warring factions, I think OK politicians would rally together and make sure that both OU and OSU are headed somewhere desirable vs letting one of them leave the other behind.

I suspect KU and KState are the same way, complicating things there (KU has the academics to go to the Pac12 or B1G but KState does not). OU would be borderline for either but politically might get in...OSU would not. It is the weakest academic institution in the Big 12 (and likely any of the power 5 conferences, including West Virginia and right there with the two MS schools from the SEC).