Texas, Oklahoma. Have. Both. Finished. In. The. Top. 10. Revenue. For. The. Last. 5. YEARS.
Your argument is void until you share sourced information.
First off, you don't seem to understand how much I like this stuff. You're begging me to dig into stuff I've written articles about. I blew up another thread because I got so sidetracked by my knowledge of the financial side of things I kind of forgot to stick to the pertinent parts.
You've been pretty aggressive here, but I'll just chalk that up to excitement.
I'm not going to link a bunch of stuff because I don't have time for that right now and I can go off the top of my head anyway. I'm just using North Carolina as a good example but I could even use Kansas, they're just more like Oklahoma in the sense that they're a small state.
I also already alluded to some financial stuff in a previous post, but I guess it was just TRDL.
Let's revisit the main point though. One reason not to add Texas and Oklahoma is because the SEC already inked the big deal with ESPN. This is important because any money to come from adding Texas and Oklahoma is just that, money to be gained at some point in the future. It was the same with Missouri and A&M, it wasn't until the SEC Network deal that adding them actually added money. In fact they had to renegotiate just to keep from
lowering the payouts to teams in the SEC.
So now the SEC is locked into long-term deals. There's no big TV money to be gained. The only exception could be if there was something to do with rolling the Longhorn Network into the SEC Network. There could be some leverage there with ESPN but that's about it. The huge deal the SEC just inked does mean that the SEC is paying out tens of millions more than some other conferences. I've outlined that elsewhere, and it might be very well why OU is sniffing around. But, as I said those deals are signed already.
That aside, let's get on with the NC to OU comparison. One of the big drivers now for revenue are the conference networks. That's why I was big on adding Missouri and Texas A&M. You really reached a lot more households with that deal. The trick here is you have a higher rate on the packages for state that has a team in the conference. So you add A&M, you get more money per Texas subscriber. You don't double the price in Alabama though. So you're not getting double by adding Texas. All you're really doing is getting the state of Oklahoma and Oklahoma isn't very big.
North Carolina is over twice the population of Oklahoma. So, North Carolina would mean double the SEC Network revenue basically. Not only that, but you have more sets of eyes to tune into sports events. Charlotte is double the market that Oklahoma City is. So if we're talking major markets Oklahoma loses out as well.
Now, you might counter with athletic department revenue, of which I am well aware. The trick is that's really only indicative of the health of the athletic department. The conferences don't actually get to keep that money. In fact, in many cases (notably Texas) it's heavily influenced by boosters donating money. They will not, I assure you, be donating money to the SEC or other schools so that amount doesn't mean much. Football is a big earner, but they get to keep their ticket sales, and all that revenue you are citing is
their revenue.
Now, you might say but Oklahoma and Texas will have highly rated football games! Sure, but as I said with no TV deals to negotiate, where's the money? Not only that, but there's already 14 teams. Texas and Oklahoma will replace other games that would otherwise take place. So instead of Alabama vs Florida we might get Alabama vs. Oklahoma. Both big games, but you have to understand it in terms of the net gain.
The thing is, basketball drives a lot of revenue to and basketball is huge in North Carolina. So, North Carolina vs Kentucky would be a huge draw in the same way Alabama vs. Oklahoma would be. Sure, the ratings would be better for the football game but you have to view it in relative terms.
The SEC already has 6 of the top 15 football powers of all time. Even if you imagine a four conference breakaway , the SEC already has all the football powers they need! In this scenario we're saying they have 8 of the top 16! Why? What would that serve? Furthermore when Alabama plays Oklahoma someone still has to lose. When Texas plays LSU someone still has to lose. There will be a net reduction in winning percentage if those two teams join. Something has to give and it would damage some football brands.
This is where North Carolina would shine as an addition. Not only are they a bigger state with a bigger major marker than Oklahoma, but they have a brand (and this is backed by merchandise sales) that rivals Oklahoma! This is without the redundancy that Oklahoma provides. If Oklahoma joins the SEC, someone will move down a notch in football. If it's Oklahoma they lose out, if it's someone else they lose out. But something has to give. With North Carolina we're seeing the SEC take a step to become a basketball power as well, and improving that brand.
I personally don't think the SEC needs to expand at all. However, if they do expand it should be something that clearly makes things better for existing teams. I haven't seen anything to indicate Oklahoma and Texas would do that. I reiterate though, I said Texas A&M and Missouri would be good additions and the SEC's per team payout has gone up tens of millions per team since then. Oklahoma and Texas are just adding football brands to add football brands...
