Started By
Message
locked post

Do you support A&M to the SEC if it means less money for your team?

Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:08 pm
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:08 pm
Posted by NorthshoreTiger76
Pelicans, Saints, & LSU Fan
Member since May 2009
83534 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:12 pm to
No
Posted by Quidam65
Q Continuum
Member since Jun 2010
20484 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:16 pm to
Sure. Since my two favorite teams are A&M (which will make real money in the SEC vs. Big 12 Beebe Bucks) and Georgia Tech (which isn't coming back to the SEC).
Posted by gotygers
west St.Tammany
Member since Sep 2007
3016 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:26 pm to
It will mean more money and a larger tv contract as it expands the sec's market share
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:28 pm to
The article I linked says "Not so fast my friend".

That was the point of the question. It might not mean more money.
Posted by gotygers
west St.Tammany
Member since Sep 2007
3016 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:30 pm to
95 percent of the Sec fans are exited about a&m joining and so am I
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:30 pm to
Even if it costs LSU money?

And I'd say maybe half of SEC fans are excited.
This post was edited on 9/14/11 at 6:31 pm
Posted by pdxlsufan
Beaverton, Oregon
Member since May 2008
3226 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:37 pm to
quote:

If A&M was added as an equal partner, the TV deals would have to be bumped up by 8.3 percent in order for the SEC members to make the same money they make now off the TV deals. It's not a guarantee that will happen.


True.

In the short run, it probably will mean less money for each school already in the SEC.

The school presidents have to decide if they think in the long run the SEC will be better off with or without A&M.

And given that the SEC voted unanimously to offer an invite to A&M, it would appear they've already made that calculation and decided to offer A&M an invite anyway.

So unless you're proposing a massive lobbying effort by fans to change the SEC's mind on extending A&M an invite, I don't really understand why it matters whether we support the decision to invite A&M.
This post was edited on 9/14/11 at 6:38 pm
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:42 pm to
It doesn't matter. I'm just asking opinion.

I just thought it was interesting that the biggest "reason" people kept giving for A&M to the SEC was "$$$$$$$$$$".

Turns out it might wind up being -$ for everybody involved.

Posted by Adam Banks
District 5
Member since Sep 2009
36460 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:43 pm to
quote:

Even if it costs LSU money?

And I'd say maybe half of SEC fans are excited.


the article says this:
"It's called a composition of conference clause and it says that if the composition of the conference changes, the networks and the conference has to prove whether the change makes the conference TV rights more or less valuable."

The article is written under the assumption that A&M doesnt add tv value but I find it hard to believe that if we add them and FSU the conference would have trouble proving that the tv rights are more valuable you would have added two currently top 15 teams and one historically top 25 program and one top 10 program (since the mid 80s) in the two most populated states in the south.

IMO Slive is a slimeball but he is no idiot. I dont think hed be moving forward on this if we didnt already have 14 or it wasnt going to change the contracts.

On a side not I dont understand what tFlagship has against this....it would bring someone new around so yall wouldnt be the red headed stepchild anymore
This post was edited on 9/14/11 at 6:45 pm
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:46 pm to
tFlagship probably gains as much as anybody by getting some more news coverage in Texas, plus we already play A&M so it doesn't change much for us.

I do find it interesting that people who know about TV contracts in that article state that it probably won't mean any additional money to SEC schools.

I just don't understand why the SEC would frick with a good thing without a really good reason.

Slive isn't infallible, as evidenced by the way AU was handled last fall.
Posted by St Augustine
The Pauper of the Surf
Member since Mar 2006
70950 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:50 pm to
I don't support it in any way.
Posted by jturn17
Member since Jan 2011
4978 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 6:55 pm to
Agreed. Also color me shocked that someone who used to work for CBS is skewing the starting point for negotiations in a way that's best for CBS/ESPN.

Just for the sake of argument that it doesn't open the deal for a complete renegotiation, and that each school does lose $2-3 million of the rest of the contract (or until an extra team or 3 or added), I'm still in favor of the addition of A&M because I'm not going to be as short-sighted as some fans of the SEC want to be.

Conference expansion is going to happen. Putting your heads in the sand and wishing for it not to happen isn't a solution. So the SEC can either be at the forefront of the change, as the were with the conference championship, or they can sit around and let the other conferences dictate the future landscape of college sports.

Over the long run adding A&M will more likely than not be more beneficial for the SEC than not adding them (and risk not being able to add them at a later date). So while it might mean less money for a short period of time (extremely debatable), I'll take the long view and welcome the addition now.
Posted by pdxlsufan
Beaverton, Oregon
Member since May 2008
3226 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 7:17 pm to
quote:

I just thought it was interesting that the biggest "reason" people kept giving for A&M to the SEC was "$$$$$$$$$$".

Turns out it might wind up being -$ for everybody involved.


Fair enough.

The reason I keep hearing in the media is that we're headed to superconferences with 16 teams anyway and so we might as well position ourselves well and get some of the better teams available.

I hear that and I think back to what happened to the WAC when they overexpanded. Granted, it's the WAC but 16 or 14 isn't some magical number in and of itself. We can't just add teams for the sake of adding teams. That's why I'm not a fan of adding Mizzou, no matter how much money it allegedly will bring in. They seem like a poor fit for the SEC culturally and would be a better fit for the B1G.

That said, I think A&M fits in very well and FSU would also fit in very well. Both schools are football obsessed and have history with current SEC schools.

The money part I'm not so sure about but if money were the only part of the equation then we would have kicked out Vandy a long time ago and I'm not sure how Arkansas and South Carolina bring in any more money than FSU and/or A&M would.

But your point about people claiming money is the biggest reason for inviting A&M is well taken...
Posted by wmr
North of Dickson, South of Herman's
Member since Mar 2009
32518 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 7:28 pm to
Arkansas and South Carolina joining was a move where the whole became greater than the sum of its parts.

It allowed a CCG for the first time. That in itself was a huge moneymaker, and justified the move regardless of who was invited. All that was needed was two good quality schools with passionate fanbases. We both fit into the middle of the SEC, kind of like how A&M probably will competitively.

This is a different deal. Now we are talking about a 13-team league which might or might not bring in more money for each member, while the other conferences might or might not match us in expansion.

If the Big 12 gets a BYU and stays put, then how fricked is the SEC with 13?
Posted by Smoke Ring
Scenic Highway Crackhouse
Member since Dec 2010
4338 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 7:46 pm to
I'm sure if wmr owned a business he'd ask his competitors what improvements he should or shouldn't make.

Of course TV execs are going to downplay a potential SEC media payout increase, which could be substantial ($100 Million +) for the SEC before all is said and done.

This post was edited on 9/14/11 at 8:14 pm
Posted by laxtonto
Member since Mar 2011
2704 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 8:51 pm to
You guys do realize that living in DFW I already get the early SEC game and I am fairly sure that is also true in Houston. If the early game is already being broadcast in DFW and Houston, what new broadcast does A&M add? They might shift some of the evening coverage map and change some of the early games, but it is not like the state of Texs has been SEC free this entire time.

An 8% bump would be approximately 22M in added revenues. That is pretty simple math, but it is hard to predict that A&M is worth substantially more than that... To add a total of 2 M per scool you are talking around 48M in total revenues generated by expanding the current Texas market..

Color em skeptical as hell on the whole grand idea that A&M to the SEC is a great money maker. The projections just don't bear it unless the entire contract gets torn up, which the networks keep saying are not happening. More than likely the networks give a small bump combined with this years expected yearly increase that makes the average payout the same as last year and not a huge all encompassing change.
Posted by TheLoupGarou
Benton, LA
Member since Oct 2010
1252 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 9:21 pm to
Doesn't cost me any money! As far as I'm concerned, the SEC should invite the best teams in the country. Then we would have a 16-team super-conference that every year battled it out for the championship, while letting the little guys, like the PAC-16, the Big-16, and the 16-East eat the crumbs off our table.
Posted by Cdawg
TigerFred's Living Room
Member since Sep 2003
61611 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 10:04 pm to
quote:

what new broadcast does A&M add?

All the A&M fans that were watching Big 12 games on Fox.
Posted by faxis
La.
Member since Oct 2007
7773 posts
Posted on 9/14/11 at 11:17 pm to
Yes. I'd like it for the increase in SEC exposure amongst Texas recruits alone.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram