Better pickup: SEC with OU and Texas or B1G with USC and UCLA

Looking straight eyeballs, it's the SEC:

6. Oklahoma — 3.46M
13. Texas — 2.26M
29. UCLA — 1.18M
32. Southern Cal — 1.11M

If you look at markets, I still think it's SEC ... the LA market is huge in general, just not convinced it's there for CFB.

Looking at what it did to the top tier of schools:

SEC / B1G
Bama / tOSU
UGA / UM
OU / USC
ATM / PSU
LSU / Wisky
UT / MSU
UF / Iowa

UCLA isn't even in the top tier of B1G schools. TX is more likely to get good sooner than UCLA.

Where it really matters is how do they match up with the big boys in the leagues to create elite inventory. Think of the games against the following:

OU/TX v. Bama
OU/TX v. UGA
OU/TX v. LSU
OU/TX v. ATM
OU/TX v. UF
OU/TX v. AU

or

USC/UCLA v. tOSU
USC/UCLA v. UM
USC/UCLA v. PSU
USC/UCLA v. MSU
USC/UCLA v. Wisky
USC/UCLA v. Iowa

which of those are going to be the more high profile games. What about lower tiers, but not trash tiers?

OU/TX v. OM
OU/TX v. UTjr
OU/TX v. USCjr
OU/TX v. Arky
OU/TX v. MSU
OU/TX v. Ky

or

USC/UCLA v. Purdue
USC/UCLA v. Nebraska
USC/UCLA v. Indiana
USC/UCLA v. Minny
USC/UCLA v. Maryland
USC/UCLA v. NW

Looking at the "4 million club":

13. Oklahoma at Oklahoma State — 6.49M
18. Oklahoma at Texas — 5.940M
36. West Virginia at Oklahoma —4.50M
39. Nebraska at Oklahoma — 4.21M

No UCLA or USC.

If you compare the conferences on this you get:

B1G
18​
SEC
19​
Both
1​
Neither
3​

A toss up on the really relevant elite matchups.

Throw in the travel issues, the fact that there really aren't any historic rivals like Arky, ATM.

Even if you look at national championships in non-CFB sports, I am pretty sure that OU and TX are ahead of UCLA and USC.

Seems to me that the SEC got the better end of the stick on this.

Now, add Notre Dame to the B1G and it pivots quickly to the B1G.
 
osubuckeye89 said:
Plus Ohio State, Michigan & Penn State are all top 10 TV audiences on the regular.

Most watched for 2021 was



  1. Ohio State — 5.22M
  2. Michigan — 4.74M
  3. Alabama — 4.64M
  4. Penn State — 3.87M
  5. Georgia — 3.61M
  6. Oklahoma — 3.46M
  7. Auburn — 3.22M
  8. Michigan State — 2.89M
  9. Notre Dame — 2.84M
  10. Oregon — 2.57M
Click to expand...


4 of the top 10. Could be 6 of the top 10 soon. Adding that and the LA Market is a homerun
 
Volbound1700 said:
Going back to OP,

I will say one item is that the UCLA and USC pickup is more risky than OU and Texas.

OU and Texas do neighbor SEC programs and Texas has strong rivals in the SEC already (Arkansas and Texas A&M). OU doesn't have as many connections but their are some geographical scenarios that work. The road trips are not so great.

USC and UCLA are two programs that have struggled to fill their stadiums and draw fan support lately due to lack of success. They will face long road trips, and their is major sports competition with College Football in the LA market (more so than with OU and UT who seem to be the chief dogs in their regions).

If UCLA and USC struggle heavily, similar to Nebraska, in the B1G, the B1G may see some loss in value with this deal and both programs may struggle in the B1G. So there is some risk in the deal not being that great long-term. However, in short term it was an amazing deal and the Fox TV Contract will kill it with this new lineup.
Click to expand...
But Nebraska brings in the $$$.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Yeah I guess I could do a poll, I wanted to hear more discussion but great point.
Click to expand...
No potato salad option ?!?

Gordon Ramsey Idiot GIF

No Way GIF
 
USC is a good pick-up, it's good the BIG is expanding out west but the LA market is overrated in terms of CFB
I'll take OU/Texas who will actually put butts in seats , eyeballs on TVs and fans that will travel.
 
OU & ut >>>> USC & UCLA


But only because of OU. Texas hasn’t done didley shit in over a decade.

And fuck Texas anyway. Just cuz.
 
Red_Alert said:
SEC won that hands down.

They got two blueblood anchors in TX/OU, where the Big 10 only got one with USC.

If it were USC/ND then it would be near even.
Click to expand...
It the B1G gets ND it’s a slam dunk and they won expansion. However this isn’t a contest you have to win, you just don’t need to screw it up.

Right now the SEC is top dog because UCLA doesn’t move any needles but totally worth taking to get USC.
 
7samurai13 said:
The Big10 made out better because we didn’t get stuck with Texas. They may not win the conference but they will kill the conference.
Click to expand...
Damn

Dude has a point.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I think this one is very close. Great move by B1G to compete with SEC's OU and Texas pickup.

When it comes to potential success on the field, I would say the OU and Texas pickup.

When it comes to media markets and $$$, I would say USC and UCLA although Texas is the biggest $$$ maker.

What is everyone else's thoughts?
Click to expand...
everyone keeps talking about the media market but if no one is watching what good does that do?
 
OlyDuck said:
everyone keeps talking about the media market but if no one is watching what good does that do?
Click to expand...

True. Los Angeles won't be as strong if UCLA and USC continue to struggle.
 
Volbound1700 said:
True. Los Angeles won't be as strong if UCLA and USC continue to struggle.
Click to expand...
usc you mean
UCLA has never been the draw. they've had what 2 or 3 seasons of 10 or more wins since 2000?
 
If we're talking on-field performance, then obviously the SEC got the better deal because OU has been a perennial playoff program and they've dominated the B12 since its inception. Texas and USC are a wash, both have been bang average or worse for a long time. UCLA's performance has been even worse than USC's.

If we are talking in terms of importance, then maybe the B1G has a better argument. Adding the 2 LA schools was certainly the more shocking development. With Texas and OU off the table, it looked like the B1G really didn't have any good options for expansion. People were looking southeast to the ACC. Virginia doesn't really move the needle, and UNC is only really good for basketball. There were also talks about adding Kansas and Iowa St. Pales in comparison to the SEC additions.

Suddenly now they added a blue blood program, maybe the most important TV market, and future expansion possibilities all along the west coast. Even talks of ND joining the fold have resurfaced. It is a massive power shift back in their favor.

IMO, there really is no clear cut winner between the 2 conferences. There are certainly losers in the PAC and B12 though. Both conferences are now without their premier brands and scrambling to see what they might be able to assemble in a "best of the rest" league.
 
Tharvot said:
If we're talking on-field performance, then obviously the SEC got the better deal because OU has been a perennial playoff program and they've dominated the B12 since its inception. Texas and USC are a wash, both have been bang average or worse for a long time. UCLA's performance has been even worse than USC's.

If we are talking in terms of importance, then maybe the B1G has a better argument. Adding the 2 LA schools was certainly the more shocking development. With Texas and OU off the table, it looked like the B1G really didn't have any good options for expansion. People were looking southeast to the ACC. Virginia doesn't really move the needle, and UNC is only really good for basketball. There were also talks about adding Kansas and Iowa St. Pales in comparison to the SEC additions.

Suddenly now they added a blue blood program, maybe the most important TV market, and future expansion possibilities all along the west coast. Even talks of ND joining the fold have resurfaced. It is a massive power shift back in their favor.

IMO, there really is no clear cut winner between the 2 conferences. There are certainly losers in the PAC and B12 though. Both conferences are now without their premier brands and scrambling to see what they might be able to assemble in a "best of the rest" league.
Click to expand...

I really don't care who won, because I just care about UT.. and i'm glad they chose to go to the SEC rather than the BiG. Travel isn't bad and we got to beef up our home schedule.. Couldn't imagine how excited I would be in a BiG schedule. Plus my Horns have matchups vs UM and tosu in the next few years.. Those are the only schools that really matter in the BiG, for me personally,
 
Thiefery said:
I really don't care who won, because I just care about UT.. and i'm glad they chose to go to the SEC rather than the BiG. Travel isn't bad and we got to beef up our home schedule.. Couldn't imagine how excited I would be in a BiG schedule. Plus my Horns have matchups vs UM and tosu in the next few years.. Those are the only schools that really matter in the BiG, for me personally,
Click to expand...

You get to renew your games with aggie and arky and your chief rival is coming along. Win-win for you.

The SEC has just as many meh games as a B1G schedule would have. Can't imagine too many horns fans getting fired up for the mississippi schools, vandy, south carolina, etc. But you're right about the home schedule. No longer is your only important conference game at a neutral site.
 
Tharvot said:
You get to renew your games with aggie and arky and your chief rival is coming along. Win-win for you.

The SEC has just as many meh games as a B1G schedule would have. Can't imagine too many horns fans getting fired up for the mississippi schools, vandy, south carolina, etc. But you're right about the home schedule. No longer is your only important conference game at a neutral site.
Click to expand...
my friends ex wife went to oxford, and he attended the UT game back in 2011 or whenever it was.. he told me he had a terrific time there.. as far as MSU? yeah I'll leave that out.. but I gotta admit that Vandy is Vandy but I love Nashville. Reminds me a bit of Austin
 
BTW @Tharvot you planning on going to both UT games (Columbus and Austin)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top