A couple of good articles linked below... the one on the B10 was interesting in that they seemed to be caught completely off guard. They know they will have to do something, but what can they do? They don't want to add just to add, and they don't want to detract from the product they already have. They also understand the lack of balance between the east and the west... and don't want to do anything to jeopardize that any more (too bad for kU?). The other article is good about the winners and losers... and had this interesting take:
winners:
" There’s actually the danger that there are a lot of losers, at least competitively. Oklahoma is one of the nation’s elite powers, and Lincoln Riley is still very young, and Texas is still Texas, for all its struggles. Alabama may still be able to deal with it, as long as Nick Saban is around, and Georgia seems well-positioned with Kirby Smart. But the next tier — Florida, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn — is going to have a tougher job breaking through, and everyone else might as well be playing for bowl position now, whereas before there was at least the faint hope of one good year propelling them to the Playoff.
Thanks to the SEC’s revenue-sharing model, the addition of Oklahoma and Texas would lift up the league’s “lowest” earners — Mizzou, Mississippi State and Ole Miss. Now, those three athletic departments still generated an average of $109 million in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and ranked between 30th and 37th nationally, so it’s not like they’re getting by on GoFundMe drives and bake sales. The value added from expansion could elevate them all into the top 25, fueling splashier facilities that outpace even the top schools in other conferences.
The winners on the field will be the No. 5 and No. 6 SEC finishers each season, who thanks to a ridiculous schedule strength will carry a contending resume for at-large bids to the 12-team Playoff."
losers:
"Any program that has pulled solid recruits out of Texas and Oklahoma will find it more difficult to do so with the Longhorns and Sooners flying an SEC banner. (I’m looking at you, Arkansas, and to a lesser extent LSU.) And given the way Texas has thrown its weight around during stints in the SWC and Big 12, what are the odds that it becomes a reliable partner with the SEC?
Georgia president Jere Morehead is the head of the SEC’s executive council, and he’s not going to comment, but my assumption is he would be a yes vote if that’s what the consensus in the league is. And one assumes it will be for financial reasons. I don’t quite buy that Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky will be against it because of the precedent of letting in a second team from that state. I’m pretty sure Georgia isn’t worried about that. (Georgia Tech already left the SEC once, and it’s just not a desirable enough program to warrant pursuing.) As for the others, you’d think the value of Texas outweighs the worry about adding an in-state ACC rival, especially since those rivals are tethered to grant-of-rights agreements in the ACC.
I’m increasingly skeptical that this will get fought from within the SEC (outside of College Station, of course). As for losers, programs such as Tennessee and Ole Miss come to mind. Yes, Tennessee has been hopelessly searching for a clue for more than a decade, but the ingredients remain for a program that could make the occasional run at a 12-team field if it were to locate said clue. Ole Miss with Lane Kiffin and Arch Manning at the controls? That might be a fringe Playoff team at some point in the current setup. Add Texas and Oklahoma and get a bad scheduling break, and that might be just enough to prevent it from happening."
On contraction:
"Nobody is leaving on their own. The money is too good. Now, that doesn’t mean that the next round of realignment doesn’t include contraction. If the future of broadcast deals is heavy on streaming, with new bidders getting into the market who don’t have the infrastructure or desire to broadcast eight games per week, it wouldn’t shock me if at some point Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU and we’ll say Auburn just to make it an even eight, say, “What do we need these other guys for? We’re bringing the big money to the table and dividing it 16 ways. That doesn’t make any sense.” From a South Carolina perspective, if it came to that, the Gamecocks would put some salve on 50-year-old hurt feelings and go back to the ACC and see if there is any interest there. (Just to throw a wrench in this conversation real quick, how about a split SEC with promotion and relegation inside the league? Only the A Flight would be eligible for the CFP. Anyway.)"
There is a whole lot more in these articles... but it is a pay site and I am not going to steal their content.
theathletic.com
theathletic.com
One other thing I have heard about, that I have not seen on here... that UT and Ou may be making noise to scare FOX and ESPN back to the negotiating table for TV contracts. That or using it as blackmail to get the other 8 teams to pay them more since they carry the water for the conference... blackmail in a family setting is beautiful, no?
winners:
" There’s actually the danger that there are a lot of losers, at least competitively. Oklahoma is one of the nation’s elite powers, and Lincoln Riley is still very young, and Texas is still Texas, for all its struggles. Alabama may still be able to deal with it, as long as Nick Saban is around, and Georgia seems well-positioned with Kirby Smart. But the next tier — Florida, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn — is going to have a tougher job breaking through, and everyone else might as well be playing for bowl position now, whereas before there was at least the faint hope of one good year propelling them to the Playoff.
Thanks to the SEC’s revenue-sharing model, the addition of Oklahoma and Texas would lift up the league’s “lowest” earners — Mizzou, Mississippi State and Ole Miss. Now, those three athletic departments still generated an average of $109 million in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and ranked between 30th and 37th nationally, so it’s not like they’re getting by on GoFundMe drives and bake sales. The value added from expansion could elevate them all into the top 25, fueling splashier facilities that outpace even the top schools in other conferences.
The winners on the field will be the No. 5 and No. 6 SEC finishers each season, who thanks to a ridiculous schedule strength will carry a contending resume for at-large bids to the 12-team Playoff."
losers:
"Any program that has pulled solid recruits out of Texas and Oklahoma will find it more difficult to do so with the Longhorns and Sooners flying an SEC banner. (I’m looking at you, Arkansas, and to a lesser extent LSU.) And given the way Texas has thrown its weight around during stints in the SWC and Big 12, what are the odds that it becomes a reliable partner with the SEC?
Georgia president Jere Morehead is the head of the SEC’s executive council, and he’s not going to comment, but my assumption is he would be a yes vote if that’s what the consensus in the league is. And one assumes it will be for financial reasons. I don’t quite buy that Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky will be against it because of the precedent of letting in a second team from that state. I’m pretty sure Georgia isn’t worried about that. (Georgia Tech already left the SEC once, and it’s just not a desirable enough program to warrant pursuing.) As for the others, you’d think the value of Texas outweighs the worry about adding an in-state ACC rival, especially since those rivals are tethered to grant-of-rights agreements in the ACC.
I’m increasingly skeptical that this will get fought from within the SEC (outside of College Station, of course). As for losers, programs such as Tennessee and Ole Miss come to mind. Yes, Tennessee has been hopelessly searching for a clue for more than a decade, but the ingredients remain for a program that could make the occasional run at a 12-team field if it were to locate said clue. Ole Miss with Lane Kiffin and Arch Manning at the controls? That might be a fringe Playoff team at some point in the current setup. Add Texas and Oklahoma and get a bad scheduling break, and that might be just enough to prevent it from happening."
On contraction:
"Nobody is leaving on their own. The money is too good. Now, that doesn’t mean that the next round of realignment doesn’t include contraction. If the future of broadcast deals is heavy on streaming, with new bidders getting into the market who don’t have the infrastructure or desire to broadcast eight games per week, it wouldn’t shock me if at some point Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU and we’ll say Auburn just to make it an even eight, say, “What do we need these other guys for? We’re bringing the big money to the table and dividing it 16 ways. That doesn’t make any sense.” From a South Carolina perspective, if it came to that, the Gamecocks would put some salve on 50-year-old hurt feelings and go back to the ACC and see if there is any interest there. (Just to throw a wrench in this conversation real quick, how about a split SEC with promotion and relegation inside the league? Only the A Flight would be eligible for the CFP. Anyway.)"
There is a whole lot more in these articles... but it is a pay site and I am not going to steal their content.
Oklahoma, Texas realignment rumors: Who in SEC wins? Who loses? What about schedules, divisions?
Expansion and college football are back in the news, and this time the storylines feature the SEC, Texas and Oklahoma.
theathletic.com
Entering perhaps a new phase of realignment, the Big Ten knows it must act quickly
Following the news of Texas and Oklahoma's reported interest in joining the SEC, the Big Ten must be proactive to address its own issues.
theathletic.com
One other thing I have heard about, that I have not seen on here... that UT and Ou may be making noise to scare FOX and ESPN back to the negotiating table for TV contracts. That or using it as blackmail to get the other 8 teams to pay them more since they carry the water for the conference... blackmail in a family setting is beautiful, no?
Last edited:
