Did anyone notice that the SEC recently added an exit fee to its bylaws? It never had one before, as it was thought crazy for any team to leave. Who is that aimed at? Not A&M, even though butthurt about adding Texas/OU, they love bragging about the SEC. Vanderbilt? South Carolina? Who would ever consider leaving?
SEC exit fee
- Thread starter BattleshipTexas
- Start date
I’d love it if the Cocks went back to the ACC, myself. I know I’m in the minority.
How much is it? Last I knew it was $00,000,000. I certainly didn't see it in the media.
Arkansas is the only team in recent history that I have heard might want to leave…but certainly not now. They were probably a Big 12 team all along, but with Missouri, A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma in the SEC…I am sure Arkansas is just fine.
Of course, expansion and re-alignment isn’t over…so SEC probably just thinking ahead as always.
TAMU and Mizzou in case the B1G made a run at them? They are the only two (other than Vandy and Florida) that would qualify and the B1G is the only conference that I know of that could offer a serious financial incentive to move.
Here it is right here. https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/s...-period-to-leave-league-to-conference-bylaws/
I would think Missouri might be a Big 10 target should that league expand. Missouri approached them before they ever joined the SEC. But if team TV payouts are going to move up toward the $100 million dollar mark, I suspect they will feel very good about staying. If Kansas were in the SEC, I KNOW they would stay.
These are educational institutions and the BOT will make these decision based on more than athletics. Hard to turn down a share of the billions in academic research funding that the BT Academic Alliance controls.
Viewed that way, it would seem that the Big 10 could have any American Association of Universities it wanted. It doesn't make sense that they would take a Nebraska but spurn a Missouri.
At the time Nebraska joined they were an AAU member. They lost it because their medical school was located in Omaha and not Lincoln. They still attract a good bit of money for research in agriculture and medicine though.
I think that, if a school has pressing athletic department financial concerns, and care about competing at he highest levels, the SEC would still have a secure membership. I'm guessing it's not kosher to use research money to prop up your athletic program. Does that make sense?
Absolutely. But do any of those programs have pressing financial concerns with regards to athletics? I don't know if they do, but it would surprise me a bit.
To the best of my knowledge, no money for research can be used for athletics. Those are typically highly restricted funds.
I think some of our schools are playing catch-up in the arms race. I also think that playing catch-up might look different in the SEC than it does in other leagues.
The pay cut in revenue, after Texas and Oklahoma joins, would make it difficult for anyone to leave, except to go to the Big 10. And even then, the differences in pay out between those 2 leagues may make it too costly to jump to the Big 10.
The Big 10 won't be able to keep up unless they do something to add value. Fox or whomever won't pay exorbitantly for the same product delivered by the same schools. Does that make sense?
I agree. I think it is very unlikely anyone would bolt the SEC. If one does, then Einstein would have been proven correct again when he said that human stupidity is infinite.
After OK and Tex join, the projected revenue is about 70 million per team. Probably will be around 50 this year. Why would any team bail?
Because someone always falls for the grass is greener speech and forgets to apply simple logic
I think this protects teams like us, who are not exactly blue chip teams in the biggest revenue sport. If the top teams in football get the idea to break out for a 32 team super league, we won’t make the cut. A year ago I would have viewed that as an impossible notion (a notion occasionally floated by bored sports writers). But with NIL and possible future pay for play, I’ll never say never.
It may be there to help with the next conference TV deal by reducing risk that the product could change.
@Lakemurraycock Actually, consider the timing of this thing. It might have been an ESPN stipulation all the time to get the deal done. In fact, that's the scenario which makes the most sense to me now.
I've wondered how the conference approached Texas AM when interest in Texas began. If the exit fee was not in effect, the intensity and unfriendliness of their rivalry suggests that Texas AM had to be placated in some manner to remain in the SEC and accept Texas as a fellow conference member. Perhaps scheduling and conference alignments when Oklahoma and Texas joins were acceptable terms to the Aggies. Maybe they received Texas' entry fee if there is such a thing. Now though if Texas AM gets irritated being in the same conference as the Longhorns, it's going to cost a lot of money and take two years to leave.
In our case I don't think we would leave the SEC if an offer was made to Clemson even without the restraints of the exit fee. We hope for more athletic success but while being in the SEC we have won two baseball championships, a women's basketball title, a Final Four men's basketball appearance, and a final top ten ranking in football. I'm not sure any of these accomplishments at South Carolina could have been done without being a SEC member. I don't see in the foreseeable future where the exit fee will be a factor for us.
In our case I don't think we would leave the SEC if an offer was made to Clemson even without the restraints of the exit fee. We hope for more athletic success but while being in the SEC we have won two baseball championships, a women's basketball title, a Final Four men's basketball appearance, and a final top ten ranking in football. I'm not sure any of these accomplishments at South Carolina could have been done without being a SEC member. I don't see in the foreseeable future where the exit fee will be a factor for us.
Be funny if they did this because they dont trust Texas and Oklahoma after leaving the Big12.
Arkansas or any team for that matter would be a fool to leave the SEC...Someone mentioned going back into the ACC...
Maybe the ACC of old would be ok...but hell no do I want to be in a conference with Syracuse, BC, Pittsburgh....uch....
I can't imagine now, not playing UT, UGA, UF, UK every year...
Maybe the ACC of old would be ok...but hell no do I want to be in a conference with Syracuse, BC, Pittsburgh....uch....
I can't imagine now, not playing UT, UGA, UF, UK every year...
This ACC is not nearly as appealing; I have to agree with you there. I'd love an expanded SEC with some of the southernmost ACC teams in it, though. Those are good, convenient trips and historical rivalries that could be rekindled, I believe.
I've said this many, many times....I want NC State and Virginia Tech in the SEC...
I don't want to see any team leaving the SEC for the Big 10. Missouri is the flagship university of a big state, an an American Association of Universities member, and have had some good athletics in their time. The only thing I don't like is that it gripes my butt that we STILL lose to them.
I want UPC and UNC in there as well - but all that isn't going to happen. FSU might be in there one day, but they weren't in the ACC when we were, so that doesn't warm my blood any.
You probably could've stopped at Texas. While I'm definitely intrigued by them and OU joining the SEC and am excitedabout future matchups, Texas has now blown up two conferences with its "all about us" dealings.
So it's definitely a case of buyer beware for Sankey and the other ADs. They better be ready for Texas to start throwing its weight around. Because history shows it's a matter of when, not if.
That's exactly why I mentioned Texas. Threw in Oklahoma just because they were a top team in the Big12. If they will leave at the top, who knows what will happen if things don't go well. Or if Texas were to leave, would they follow? IDK.
That said, I trust them and their decision to leave and I get they like what they see here. At the same time, we should absolutely cover our bases.
I honestly believe Texas is coming hat-in-hand. They won't be able to run over the SEC. They don't have and never will have the leverage they had in their former affiliations.
Oh they may start that way. But eventually I wouldn't be surprised if they did try to throw their weight around if there was something that they thought could benefit them. It's just the way they're wired.
But they will never be charter members nor carry the clout they did before. If they try it, power still resides in Birmingham. They will come up with countermeasures.
This assumes that Power 5 college football continues on as it currently is. What happens if and when the historical top teams want to break away completely from the NCAA and form their own league and keep all the revenue for themselves?
Its not hard to imagine that Texas would be all about that. It's not even too much of a stretch to think the Bama, Auburns, LSUs, Georgia's and the like would at least be tempted by it.
Having said that, I would hope your scenario would be the most likely and those I mentioned would collectively smack them down and remind them they don't call the shots in this conference.
With the addition of OU and UT, the SEC’s next contract with ESPN will be off the charts. I believe the last ‘dividend divided among member schools was $43 MILLION per institution. Anyone wanting to exit the SEC would be nuckin’ futs!
Not only that but we know once all the universities start budgeting with that kinda money, you cant put that genie back in the bottle. Cuts are never an option anymore. We'll all pay if a team(s) bolts so the schools can keep spending that money. Best to discourage it just in case.
Those west of the red river just realized the size of the Johnson……..sorta like the morning after.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/291fc493-c3f5-4d58-bf7e-0a03123de45c
Latest posts
-
-
-
Should the Olympics feature the best players or the most marketable players?- Latest: Whiterockcock69