graygrantham

As a lifelong K-State fan (61) I can tell you with absolute certainty that on opening day 2013 when North Dakota State defeated the defending Big 12 Co-Champions Kansas State 24-21, in Bill Snyder Family Stadium, there were no K State fans laughing at North Dakota State...

I am not questioning the consumer purchasing power of the SEC audience. This particular story is not about the SEC only, it is about the other 51 schools in the Power Conferences as well. As exemplified by the declining numbers of the PAC 12 network, "regionalism" is the primary reason nobody outside of the PAC 12 region wants to see their games on national TV and it doesn't matter if its broadcast on VHF, UHF, Cable, Satellite or live streaming. Adding (any) two teams from the Big 12 couldn't do anything but improve the PAC 12 Network. While breaking up regional rivalries in the SEC may not be a good idea, for other conferences there are plenty of rivalries with little to no meaning that could easily be replaced with inter regional games that would be a much better draw. Regarding your last line: The SEC pulls its weight in viewers like no other conference, that is why it will survive the cord cutting when others will not. Not sure what you mean by that. I get that SEC has solid viewer ratings, but do you imagine that cord cutting means cutting out the middle man (ESPN, ABC, FOX, Netflix, Amazon..?) Do you suppose that the Conference or the Schools will make a ton of money doing what the Big 12 does with its Tier 3 rights (Schools live stream their own content)? If so I think that is an overly optimistic view of competing with the likes of ESPN, ABC, Netflix and Amazon. Where do you think the money is broadcast comes from? Subscriptions? Subscriptions won't even pay the light bills. The money comes from ad revenue. Do you seriously think that the SEC or individual schools have the ability to generate enough ad revenue on their own to compete with the ad power of a national media company? The costs saving in cord cutting is not from subscriptions vs ad revenue it is in streamlined subscriptions for al la carte programming not offered by Cable or Satellite. It still depends on nation wide advertising to make it more profitable than the existing model

The problem with "regionalism" is that it doesn't pay the bills. All Power conferences derive the bulk of their revenue from broadcast media, cord cutting will alter the manner but not the method. Regional broadcasts are worthless to that model, only games of national significance draw the kind of viewership/revenue required to fund Power Conference Football.

As a Big8/12 fan (K State), I concur with aggierider, UT-Austin is poison.

You may be wrong in thinking Big 12 fans would not want to see the Big 12 disbanded. I am a lifelong K State fan, 30 years of Futility U. followed by 30 years of Bill Snyder and 2 Big 12 Championships. I don't have anything against the SEC, but I don't think K State is a cultural fit regardless of having 3 other former Big 12 Schools (Mizzou, A&M and Texas) I would love to see the Big 12 disbanded fro no other reason than to get K State out of the same conference as Texas. I don't have any problem competing with Texas. As a matter of fact K State is the only team in college football that has played Texas more than 10 times and has a winning record to show for it (including Oklahoma). My beef with Texas is how the disastrous effect the LHN and unequal revenue distribution favored Texas, Oklahoma and Nebrasks from the inception of the Big 12 until Nebraska, Mizzou, Colorado and A&M left. After that all Tier 1 and Tier 2 revenue was equally shared but Texas was allowed to maintain the LHN which guaranteed Texas almost $30 million a year. Now I can appreciate Notre Dame, Ohio State, Tennessee, Alabama earning more money because their fans are willing to pay up, but that wasn't the case with Texas. ESPN was the one willing to pay up, and ESPN's "investment" in the LHN poisoned then destroyed the Big 12. I don't know of any fan who grew up in the Big 8 that has any desire to be in the same conference with Texas post 2025. I would rather see K State in the Mountain West than share the same conference with Texas after 2025. Maybe Texas will work for and with the SEC but they have a long history of being the anchor of failing conferences (SWC and Big 12) that ought to tell the folks in SEC country something, hell A&M fans will tell you the same thing. Overall I think your realignment and Amnesty plan would be absolutely great for competition in college football. Its easy to see how in the past 10 years schools like UCF, Houston, Cincinnati, Temple, Boise State and BYU could have been promoted to a P4 Conference and some of the Dregs relegated to the Mid Majors. I think if you leave the Basketball Conferences alone and only apply this to FBS football it has a lot of benefits. The two biggest impediments to this type of quantum shift are (1) Absolute power to affect this kind of change is in the hands, essentially of 65 University Presidents who don't have to answer to anyone and (2) With only 6 or 7 home games each year there is almost no ability to reconcile traditional rivalries with progressive rivalries. Perhaps there should be some sort of merit system that allows teams to earn extra home games (in conference) based on wins vs losses.