Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Official realignment thread - SEC formally invites OU and Texas to join the conference in 2025

onealcd said:
What?
Click to expand...
Call me cynical, and I got a chitty night of sleep, but if I was commish of the SEC/head of ESPN, I would look to add teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc. - I realize their grant of rights goes till the end of time, but new media contracts will dwarf existing contracts, so there will be plenty of cash to go around.

So if I ran a conference (or was the head of ESPN) with a group that included Bama, OU, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, one of the Florida schools, and one of the Texas schools, routinely finishing in the top 6 of my league, there would be no need to share playoff revenue with lesser conferences. I would control every major college football property outside of ND, OSU, Mich, and U$C. Why give them a lifeline? And more importantly, after spending billions on covering and promoting SEC schools, there would be less of an incentive for ESPN to run a playoff where they promote teams outside of the SEC.

With the majority of the "top" schools, I would crown the SEC champ the national champ. The NBA champion doesn't go play the Euro champ to determine who's team reigns supreme, we all know the NBA team is better.

Lastly, I read an article yesterday suggesting that the SEC should opt out of the NCAA. No more clearinghouse, no more scholarship restrictions - the article suggested 100 to 120 scholarship limit. And put players on payroll of some kind.

My feared scenario won't happen, but if I was advising the SEC and ESPN, that's what I would look to do.
 
Buffs35 said:
Call me cynical, and I got a chitty night of sleep, but if I was commish of the SEC/head of ESPN, I would look to add teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc. - I realize their grant of rights goes till the end of time, but new media contracts will dwarf existing contracts, so there will be plenty of cash to go around.

So if I ran a conference (or was the head of ESPN) with a group that included Bama, OU, Clemson, LSU, Georgia, one of the Florida schools, and one of the Texas schools, routinely finishing in the top 6 of my league, there would be no need to share playoff revenue with lesser conferences. I would control every major college football property outside of ND, OSU, Mich, and U$C. Why give them a lifeline? And more importantly, after spending billions on covering and promoting SEC schools, there would be less of an incentive for ESPN to run a playoff where they promote teams outside of the SEC.

With the majority of the "top" schools, I would crown the SEC champ the national champ. The NBA champion doesn't go play the Euro champ to determine who's team reigns supreme, we all know the NBA team is better.

Lastly, I read an article yesterday suggesting that the SEC should opt out of the NCAA. No more clearinghouse, no more scholarship restrictions - the article suggested 100 to 120 scholarship limit. And put players on payroll of some kind.

My feared scenario won't happen, but if I was advising the SEC and ESPN, that's what I would look to do.
Click to expand...
Okay that has nothing to do with the article posted.
 
Ok one maybe long shot solution that has probably already been proposed. What if the p12 and big 10 merged? They would be at 26 teams and could add 6 more from the left behind 8 or otherwise. Four 8 team divisions split geographically.
 
Liver said:
Ok one maybe long shot solution that has probably already been proposed. What if the p12 and big 10 merged? They would be at 26 teams and could add 6 more from the left behind 8 or otherwise. Four 8 team divisions split geographically.
Click to expand...
A 32 team conference? Goodness.
 
Liver said:
Ok one maybe long shot solution that has probably already been proposed. What if the p12 and big 10 merged? They would be at 26 teams and could add 6 more from the left behind 8 or otherwise. Four 8 team divisions split geographically.
Click to expand...
I feel like that is not as long shot as you are making it out to be. It would be a way to keep the alliance between the two conferences and present a viable alternative to the super conference that the SEC is intent on creating.
 
The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. The writing is on the wall for these mega-conferences. The PAC 12 network would be a pretty valuable asset to a 32 team conference. Our negotiating position would get pretty strong pretty fast.
 
Last edited:
Liver said:
this.

i don't see the p12 raiding the big 10.

i am hoping best case, the b10 decides to pull CU and maybe ku.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the B1G want to pull in the next best available, not only for money but also for pride... to try to stick it to the $EC (and to stick with them)?
Not saying it would be CU, but a fan can hope.
 
One thing no one on this thread seems to have mentioned too much (outside of a few snippets from hokie), or put too much thought into are the ACC's options.

theathletic.com

Mandel: The Pac-12 finally has options, including standing pat. But will a motivated ACC take a long look out West?

As the Pac-12 works to close the financial gap with other Power 5 conferences, could its marquee brands now be poached by other leagues?
theathletic.com theathletic.com

Could a both coasts conference work (shun the flyover states...)? Instead of partnering with the B1G, could the Pac12 partner with the ACC and get anywhere?
 
Let’s say the B1G and Pac 12 merged to create a 26 team conference. Would there be a media deal big enough to put each program on the same financial level as each of the new 16 programs in the SEC?
 
If we are to assume the SEC is moving towards a 20+ team league and absorbing the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc., then a merger of the B1G and PAC make the most sense in order to compete head to head. Egos will have to be left at the door in order to pull it off, but I think it will be necessary over the long run to keep the SEC in check. SEC is holding all the cards right now, and it's going to take some big moves by the B1G, PAC, ACC, and ND to counter their momentum. Just an alliance isn't going to cut it. Perhaps it's the first move, but it shouldn't be the last.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Let’s say the B1G and Pac 12 merged to create a 26 team conference. Would there be a media deal big enough to put each program on the same financial level as each of the new 16 programs in the SEC?
Click to expand...
A 26 team merger would likely create less revs per team than current B1G contract. I don’t see that happening. Cherry picking? Yes. Full merger? Nope.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Let’s say the B1G and Pac 12 merged to create a 26 team conference. Would there be a media deal big enough to put each program on the same financial level as each of the new 16 programs in the SEC?
Click to expand...

When ESPN replaces CBS the expected payout is gonna be just short of 70m per school per year and that is without UT and OU. It's anyone's guess how much that goes up by.

The NBA currently makes 2.6bn-ish total from their domestic TV rights, ESPN pays 2.7bn for MNF under the new agreement and FOX/CBS pay around half a billion less for the NFC/AFC packages.

While 26 teams give you a lot of inventory to sell I have my doubts that would be worth anywhere near those rights.
 
Look, I'm not going to read through 70 pages so forgive me if this has been discussed- but why does this make sense for OU and UT?

The nearest I can tell, OU and UT received about $42M in payout from the B12 in the last "normal" year, whereas SEC teams received about $45M- however, Ole Miss only received a partial payout since they had a postseason ban. So lets say that the delta was something like $2.5M.

OU has made the playoff 4 times out of 7 opportunities- only Clemson and Alabama have been selected more often. A second SEC team has been selected exactly once, and that was Alabama. So to qualify now, Oklahoma has to be champion of a much larger conference or hope that they have enough cachet to get selected in a year when they don't win the conference.

UT has had a stranglehold on the direction of the conference, but a number of those teams in the SEC have similar pull.

So, for ~$2.5M annually (assuming that the next round of negotiations result in UT and OU included in the package results in a similar per school payout) is worth a tougher path to the playoff and a lower degree of control?

Or is it a risk mitigation strategy in case the B12 is no longer attractive?
 
Denver_sc said:
Look, I'm not going to read through 70 pages so forgive me if this has been discussed- but why does this make sense for OU and UT?

The nearest I can tell, OU and UT received about $42M in payout from the B12 in the last "normal" year, whereas SEC teams received about $45M- however, Ole Miss only received a partial payout since they had a postseason ban. So lets say that the delta was something like $2.5M.

OU has made the playoff 4 times out of 7 opportunities- only Clemson and Alabama have been selected more often. A second SEC team has been selected exactly once, and that was Alabama. So to qualify now, Oklahoma has to be champion of a much larger conference or hope that they have enough cachet to get selected in a year when they don't win the conference.

UT has had a stranglehold on the direction of the conference, but a number of those teams in the SEC have similar pull.

So, for ~$2.5M annually (assuming that the next round of negotiations result in UT and OU included in the package results in a similar per school payout) is worth a tougher path to the playoff and a lower degree of control?

Or is it a risk mitigation strategy in case the B12 is no longer attractive?
Click to expand...
1) The renegotiated contract with OU and UT will be substantially higher.
2) Ego.
 
Denver_sc said:
Look, I'm not going to read through 70 pages so forgive me if this has been discussed- but why does this make sense for OU and UT?

The nearest I can tell, OU and UT received about $42M in payout from the B12 in the last "normal" year, whereas SEC teams received about $45M- however, Ole Miss only received a partial payout since they had a postseason ban. So lets say that the delta was something like $2.5M.

OU has made the playoff 4 times out of 7 opportunities- only Clemson and Alabama have been selected more often. A second SEC team has been selected exactly once, and that was Alabama. So to qualify now, Oklahoma has to be champion of a much larger conference or hope that they have enough cachet to get selected in a year when they don't win the conference.

UT has had a stranglehold on the direction of the conference, but a number of those teams in the SEC have similar pull.

So, for ~$2.5M annually (assuming that the next round of negotiations result in UT and OU included in the package results in a similar per school payout) is worth a tougher path to the playoff and a lower degree of control?

Or is it a risk mitigation strategy in case the B12 is no longer attractive?
Click to expand...
Texas and OU received 37 million from the big 12 last fiscal year. Texas received another 15 million from the long horn network and OU was somewhere around 8 from their tier 3 rights. The only reason the SEC was at 45 million was because they had the contract with CBS which is now going to ESPN and they are projected to jump somewhere just above 63 million a year. That is only one part of the equation though as they are going to have much better opponents coming in for games which will help their bottom line too.
 
Denver_sc said:
Look, I'm not going to read through 70 pages so forgive me if this has been discussed- but why does this make sense for OU and UT?

The nearest I can tell, OU and UT received about $42M in payout from the B12 in the last "normal" year, whereas SEC teams received about $45M- however, Ole Miss only received a partial payout since they had a postseason ban. So lets say that the delta was something like $2.5M.

OU has made the playoff 4 times out of 7 opportunities- only Clemson and Alabama have been selected more often. A second SEC team has been selected exactly once, and that was Alabama. So to qualify now, Oklahoma has to be champion of a much larger conference or hope that they have enough cachet to get selected in a year when they don't win the conference.

UT has had a stranglehold on the direction of the conference, but a number of those teams in the SEC have similar pull.

So, for ~$2.5M annually (assuming that the next round of negotiations result in UT and OU included in the package results in a similar per school payout) is worth a tougher path to the playoff and a lower degree of control?

Or is it a risk mitigation strategy in case the B12 is no longer attractive?
Click to expand...
Outside of those two, the Big 12 has poor membership, low population states, where viewership was low when not playing UT or OU. Texas also saw that it was losing ground to A&M. My guess is Texas hats started the process and OU kind of had to come along or else truly be stuck with the midwestern nobodies.
 
Denver_sc said:
Look, I'm not going to read through 70 pages so forgive me if this has been discussed- but why does this make sense for OU and UT?

The nearest I can tell, OU and UT received about $42M in payout from the B12 in the last "normal" year, whereas SEC teams received about $45M- however, Ole Miss only received a partial payout since they had a postseason ban. So lets say that the delta was something like $2.5M.

OU has made the playoff 4 times out of 7 opportunities- only Clemson and Alabama have been selected more often. A second SEC team has been selected exactly once, and that was Alabama. So to qualify now, Oklahoma has to be champion of a much larger conference or hope that they have enough cachet to get selected in a year when they don't win the conference.

UT has had a stranglehold on the direction of the conference, but a number of those teams in the SEC have similar pull.

So, for ~$2.5M annually (assuming that the next round of negotiations result in UT and OU included in the package results in a similar per school payout) is worth a tougher path to the playoff and a lower degree of control?

Or is it a risk mitigation strategy in case the B12 is no longer attractive?
Click to expand...
You are reading bad projections. $70M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top