In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 710
Online now 734 Record: 5859 (2/14/2012)
The place to talk about the Florida State Seminoles
The place to discuss general topics outside of Florida State
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
most don't understand the reason behinds Slive moves. Adding A&M and Mizz increase the SEC footprint into 4 Top 25 TV markets so when the ESPN deal is reworked and assuming the SEC network comes within the next 5 years, you're talking about a billions because of the total markets in 11 states. The move also increase the academic prestige by adding two more AAU members. Slive is the best in the business and hasn't made a mistake for the SEC while in office.
Clemson and FSU increase ratings by adding potential big matchups, but FSU also brings in huge markets. Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, West Palm, Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami are all big. I am not sure where they rank in the top 25, but not only are these big markets, but they are football watching markets.
A&M was a great pickup for the SEC and I guess adding them meant the SEC needed to get a 14th. Missouri may bring in a top market, but it is not an overwhelming football watching area, and Missouri is not that great of a program. Missouri is going to be a .500 team in the SEC if they are lucky. That isn't exactly going to bring huge ratings.
There are no huge markets in the state of Alabama or Mississippi, and Louisiana has New Orleans and that is basically it, but the entire state is considered a football watching area. People in Alabama and Mississippi are going to watch all SEC games, same with Louisiana. People in the state of Missouri? Ehh...
"Some people think football is a matter of life and death, I assure you, it is much more serious than that."
A. No football fan who watches a lot of games on TV cares about adding AAU members.
B. Adding ATM only added a small bump in maybe the Houston area and an even smaller one in DFW. Nobody in SA or Austin cares about little aggy. Little aggy has zero fan base beyond alums and has no national franchise. They have been a break even to losing football program forever so even most little aggys do not care about watching little aggy getting drilled by SEC teams. The networks understand this even if Slive does not.
C. Very few people care about college football in Missouri because MU has been irrelevant in college football forever.
The notion that MU and little aggy bring TV markets is a complete joke to anyone who is not a delusional aggy or Slive. It is no accident that the exit of MU and little aggy had a positive effect on the new Big 12 TV contracts.
This post was edited by InsightTexas 23 months ago
FSU brings those markets to the Big 12 but the SEC already has those with UF. Missouri was more for adding off the field and adding old rivals to Arkie and A&M. The SEC sells itself in the south so Slive could careless about ratings it about being able to sell the SEC network in those markets.
If it was about football FSU would have been on the short list with A&M. Markets will drive the SEC network and that's what it comes down to from this point on.
This post was edited by AtlGator19 23 months ago
I never said the SEC should have added FSU. I don't want to go to the SEC. I am just saying that FSU to the BigXII is going to add a lot. Mizzou to the SEC brings very little unless you were really that concerned about adding more AAU schools to the conference. If I am the SEC, I am not quite sure which school I would have added to get to 14. Mizzou may have been the best option out there. Assuming that Mizzou was worth it if it meant getting A&M then it was still a good move I suppose. However, lets not pretend like adding Mizzou was this genius move by Slive. It was a great move considering your footprint already existed in KY, TN, AR, LA, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC. So the only places to expand the footprint are: MO, NC, or VA. And considering UNC was not interested, I suppose it made Mizzou the next best option over VT.
Lets face it, if the SEC is at 12 and A&M does not want to join, then you never even bother with MIzzou. Mizzou is now an SEC school because the SEC needed to get to 14.
adding Mizzou it like adding L'ville, GT or Pitt to the Big 12. All are average at footbal but bring large media market and pretty solid at basketball and non-rev sports.
same could be said for Arky 20 years ago. The SEC needed to get to 12 so they took them after SC. A conference doesn't need 12-14 great/solid teams to make money. No one besides rival fans see the additions of Mizz or A&M as a mistake.
cliffs for those of us who can't read their articles
You have it backwards. the SEC wanted ARK b/c ut and A&M were not interested. USCJR was added after FSU and UM said no thanks.
THe SEC was scrambling when it added USCJR.
THe SEC's preference in 1990 was to add FSU and UM but we both got better money offers elsewhere.
This post was edited by TNOLE27 23 months ago
Find it funny a league that was left for dead because of schools (Nebraska, Texas A&M & Mizzou) leaving could be so arrogant.
Beggers can't be choosers.
Did you miss the whole 9 months of Baylor threats by Kenneth Starr causing TAMU to get delayed into entering the Big12?
Why do you think the league (Big12) is currently acting like they're doing nothing, and not approaching collages? Baylor showed the world last year that colleges much approach the conferences first, not the other way around, or the conference can get sued... how did you miss all that?
Let me help you:
Texas A&M may join the SEC but a Big 12 school is threatening litigation if it follows through with those plans.
Baylor is just looking out for itself by attempting to block Texas AM from leaving
I hope you realize that by adding Texas A&M, that the SEC's "TV market share" with regards to footprint, improved over 40% alone.
TAMU is a big drawl in Houston and Dallas, two of Texas's biggest markets. Despite what "fans" think, Texas and Texas A&M are still the big monsters in the state and have the largest footprint, influence, donor bases and fan bases (U. of Texas of course leads between the two).
You sir, "get it". What you just stated is exactly correct.
All those that are reading every single word and analyzing it are wasting their time and emotions by getting worked up.
The conference will NEVER admit to wanting certain teams before those teams actually apply and are technically the ones that "officially reached out to the conference".
Baylor showed the world last year behind Kenneth Starr (their President and former USA President Clintions impeacher) that you can cause massive drama if you crack a conference over or are stupid enough to admit in public you "covet thy neighbor's wife" (read: want teams from another conference)
1. Bias is obvious when you refer to them as "little aggy". Kinda ruins any point you're trying to make.
2. So you lose 2 bigger names in Mizzou and Texas A&M, and add in WVU and TCU and you think you got a contract raise because of it? Who are you trying to kid there?
(No matter how much you hate, no chance TAMU + MIZZOU is not greater than TCU + WVU)
Texas, OU (and TAMU) were ALREADY making the 20 million that the conference is NOW making on their NEW deal. That's not a raise. The other teams got a raise, but couldn't one easily point out that EVERY CONTRACT ON THE PLANET is higher than before, due to economies of scale.
.... but hey, if you want to live in fantasyland being a "hater" instead.. I guess go for it.
IF you disagree, then let's go one step further - ESPN is already on the hook saying adding FSU won't cause a raise in the current contract... so does that mean FSU's worthless? Get my point yet?
This post was edited by satexas 23 months ago
No, all are filler. I agree with your assessment of the teams.
Big XII not interested... Yeah, just let the domers show the slightest interest, and as others have said on here, the folks in that conference will start moving like one-legged folks in a log rolling contest...
I've never understood the fascination with Slive. The SEC unquestionably has the best football product over the past decade. Yet when they sign their next TV deal, they are definitely going to be behind the B1G and PAC and perhaps behind the Big 12 as well.
One would think with better leadership they would be in a position to be paid like the top football conference, not the third/fourth.
Mizzou a "bigger " name, where exactly? it is not a big name in St Louis.
The big 12 lost one big name- NEBRASKA. No offense but the 2nd biggest name it lost is Colorado.
The Buffs have a bigger national viewing audience than A&M.
IMHO TCU and WVU are a push as compared to A&M and MIZZOU. TCU brings a better football program to the big 12 as compared to A&M and WVU is better than Mizzou. So the big 12 football has seen a big upgrade in quality with the recent switch.
TAMU was not making the 20 million b/c the revenue was based on tv appearances until you left. Mizzou was making 20 million.
What is funny if both Mizzou and the SEc are regretting their decisions to leave and take each other. Mizzou left because of perceived instability and now realizes the big 12 is stable. The SEC panicked and took a big 10 reject. Why? primarily because it could not figure out how to run a 13 team schedule. Look at the mensa club in Sandestin trying to figure out a 14 team schedule. No one is going to confuse them with Vulcans. Someone should have asked the big 10 how to run a 13 team schedule. I know, Mizzou was so great that all the public groveling in the world wasn't good enough for the big 10 to take mizzou.
After all, the Omaha market was too good to pass up.
It is like Slive (I think your school knows him as Silva) is playing checkers while Delaney and Scott are playing chess.
Now Slive has ensured the survival of the big 12 and it is going to add a team right in the middle of the SEc that has a big a national audience as anyone in the SEC which will mean the big 12 will have more power with the networks than the SEC. smart move. After all, your favorite burnt orange team has a much bigger audience than anyone in the SEC.
Next it will probably add ND in the next few years which will make the SEC a distant second in viewership. Brilliant.
Neinas must still be laughing
You're so the artist of revisionist history. Correcting your constant and blaent misrepresentation of facts is almost an olympic sport at this point.
Here's some reality for you:
"Part of the arrangement in the Big 12 surviving, as ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports stepped up financially (verbally to this point), hinged on league heavyweights Texas, Oklahoma and A&M each receiving $20 million annually in coming years, thanks to upgraded TV deals for the conference."
Quote form President Loftin in 2010:
“A key part of Texas A&M’s decision to remain in the Big 12 earlier this summer was the commissioner’s commitment that Texas A&M would receive a minimum of $20 million annually in future conference distributions,” Loftin said in a statement. “We remain committed to the conference and fully anticipate that the Big 12 will honor its commitment to Texas A&M.”
... they didn't. A&M left.
"In 2010, the Big 12 distributed $139 million between member institutions. As most of you are aware, the Big 12 does not distribute television money equally. According to Texas A&M financial documents, their portion of the conference distribution was $9.3 million, not including bowl game reimbursements."
... and a reference to 2010 events again:
"Texas then went back to Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, who was fighting to keep what was left of his league together. And Beebe had no reservations about Texas creating the Longhorn Network.
"Other league members were equally desperate. Together, they promised Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma an annual payout of $20 million if they would stay in the league. Beebe said he would seek a new media rights deal, and he delivered in April with a 13-year agreement with Fox for $90 million. But the lovefest has been short-lived"
The Texas AM Board of Regents has called a meeting for Monday where it is expected to end its 15-year union with the Big 12, according to Brent Zwerneman of the San Antonio Express-News. The move would clear the way...
Last time I checked, the SEC doesn’t require schools to physically move when they join the conference. There are no plans for Texas A
SEC deal before the Pac and B1G so of course it's third atp. The SEC teams were getting 18+ million before any of those deals were ever inplace. Once the new deal is announce the SEC again will be tops in money per team.
This post was edited by AtlGator19 22 months ago
You are a funny guy. Slive is the best Comm in the business... first billion $ TV deal, leader for the playoff system( has the votes for a committee instead of conference champion BS) and footprint into larger TV markets...Slive gets what he wants The only things the Pac 12 or B1G accomplished first were to get a network and own regional markets;base on the SEC's model. If Slive was the Commish in the ACC or Big 12 neither would we be viewed as unstable or getting left behind, that's for sure.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by AtlGator19 22 months ago
SA - I think you're a little confused. What DancingBear1 is saying is that there is no proof or evidence that Baylor ever actually threatened to sue anyone.
The links you provided are "journalists" saying that Baylor was threatening to sue. Just because someone says something is true doesn't make it so (a/k/a hearsay is not evidence).
If you have any proof that Baylor threatened a lawsuit, then you should provide it. If you don't, you should stop saying something you can't back up.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports