North Carolina could perhaps try to negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

No.

UCLA couldn't get a spot for Cal, a more prestigious school the North Carolina or Duke. Oklahoma, a bigger brand and more important in a football centric world, couldn't secure a spot for Oklahoma State, a far more important football and basketball program and brand than NC State.

Beyond that, Duke is at best a long shot, probably below Stanford, to be a P2 candidate. North Carolina is not wanted if they bring baggage, any more than when Oklahoma tried to shop themselves with Oklahoma State in tow, but is very much desired if the come alone, like Oklahoma finally did.

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

Duke probably won’t get a P2 spot. Why would it be lobbying for another school?

(03-04-2024 03:43 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

Duke probably won’t get a P2 spot. Why would it be lobbying for another school?

Don't think for a second that the SEC presidents would hesitate to have the Research Triangle association if it meant making a spot for Duke. Duke doesn't have to lobby for anyone. Tim Cook the CEO of Apple donates lavishly to two schools. His undergraduate Alma Mater: Auburn University and his graduate Alma Mater: Duke University. And he donates for academic endeavors and athletic endeavors. Whether you make it into a P2 has nothing to do with anything except 1 mandate, the court ruling on NIL and likely another coming, Employee Status. Duke will breeze in while some state schools of size will struggle. Duke doesn't have to make money to get. They have the money. All they really have to do is treat football seriously enough to be competitive. Other state schools without the pockets, though they are state funded, will struggle under the added overhead. The SEC and Big 10 schools are only considered ready because they have operated athletic budgets large enough to demonstrate their ability to handle what's coming. This is why when the PAC 12 was raided by the Big 10 the four schools taken were the top 4 revenue generators. It's why when the Big 12 was raided it first lost well-funded schools which were competitive like Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Missouri, but when Texas and Oklahoma left they were the top two earners and represented 56.3% of the Big 12's ability to generate business beyond the games themselves in terms of sales involving their name and activities beyond the universities' control within their sphere of influence. The reason more ACC schools are positioned to be taken is because their gap in revenue production between schools within the conference is relatively narrow and the top earners (the football first schools) and the best-known brands (the top basketball schools) are two different subsets. Their top earners last reported year were in order 1. FSU, 2. Duke, 3. Miami, 4. Clemson 5. Louisville

PAC2 redux? Wake Forest, who provides some better sports programs than some of those “packaged targets”, and Boston College are left to rebuild the ACC?

If essentially the whole center of the ACC is lifted away plus a few others, why do it? It’s conference consolidations for nothing other than size and cost enhancements, and apparently planting the seeds for new baggage. Do that and see a split movement within five years. Diluting your product via extreme, unnecessary volume won’t go well. Having 11 kids instead of 3 or 4 maximum may mean none get to go to college.

Geez, now I am sounding like a Tarheel. Forcing full circle won’t be a resolution imo.

(03-04-2024 05:38 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  PAC2 redux? Wake Forest, who provides some better sports programs than some of those “packaged targets”, and Boston College are left to rebuild the ACC?

If essentially the whole center of the ACC is lifted away plus a few others, why do it? It’s conference consolidations for nothing other than size and cost enhancements, and apparently planting the seeds for new baggage. Do that and see a split movement within five years. Diluting your product via extreme, unnecessary volume won’t go well. Having 11 kids instead of 3 or 4 maximum may mean none get to go to college.

Geez, now I am sounding like a Tarheel. Forcing full circle won’t be a resolution imo.

48 instead of 69? Or toss in a Big 12 of 24 but at a reduced rate and you have what we have now. There is no redux of anything. What consolidation does is package the best brands or schools with the ability to reach a large market under two banners eliminating duplicated overhead in administration at the conference levels and focusing on audience participation to maximize profit.

What are you missing? It's not the schools, it's the overhead duplication and packaging larger groups gives them more leverage in negotiating contracts and makes for better scheduling.

If we have 3 twenty team conferences, we'll have a reduction of 9 schools. A 3-conference set up with memberships of 24 each will produce 3 additional schools in the upper tier. What we are missing is 2 conference commissioners, their office complexes and their overhead.

(03-04-2024 05:38 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  PAC2 redux? Wake Forest, who provides some better sports programs than some of those “packaged targets”, and Boston College are left to rebuild the ACC?

If essentially the whole center of the ACC is lifted away plus a few others, why do it? It’s conference consolidations for nothing other than size and cost enhancements, and apparently planting the seeds for new baggage. Do that and see a split movement within five years. Diluting your product via extreme, unnecessary volume won’t go well. Having 11 kids instead of 3 or 4 maximum may mean none get to go to college.

Geez, now I am sounding like a Tarheel. Forcing full circle won’t be a resolution imo.

It's Tar Heel .

A P5 conference doesn't need 2 schools from the Research Triangle area, let alone 3.

(03-04-2024 05:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 05:38 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  PAC2 redux? Wake Forest, who provides some better sports programs than some of those “packaged targets”, and Boston College are left to rebuild the ACC?

If essentially the whole center of the ACC is lifted away plus a few others, why do it? It’s conference consolidations for nothing other than size and cost enhancements, and apparently planting the seeds for new baggage. Do that and see a split movement within five years. Diluting your product via extreme, unnecessary volume won’t go well. Having 11 kids instead of 3 or 4 maximum may mean none get to go to college.

Geez, now I am sounding like a Tarheel. Forcing full circle won’t be a resolution imo.

It's Tar Heel .

And North Carolina is two words, dear.

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

Can FSU enable themselves a spot in the Big Ten? Maybe you should be more concerned with that?

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

You have been including Kansas in your SEC expansionsion hypothticals for a few weeks consistently. Now you have also added Duke, which is in part more likely in that either Duke and Kansas both get invited or neither gets invited. Either basketball matters, or in their cases, big brand basketball matters, or it doesn't. It probably doesn't. If that is true, nothing else that makes them advantageous to the SEC matters either.

I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

I think you are undervaluing how big of dogs Cal and Stanford are in football media revenue value It just doesn't matter how great their academics are if no one watches their games.

National, or at least large regional brands playing national brands that are rivals or are located where they could be rivals to large national brands, is what matters. No one outside of Cal or Stanford and the fans of the teams they play would watch them. Now compare them to say Virginia Tech and NCST. People would watch these schools play Tennessee, Georgia and the rest of the SEC. Tenn vs VT would be huge imo.

(03-04-2024 09:32 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

Right. At the same time, eventually each of those schools need to pay for themselves in the long-term. The Big Ten took Washington and Oregon because their studies showed that they would ultimately add value in the long-term (so the fact that they are being paid partial revenue shares initially is just a bonus for the Big Ten). Matt Brown and others have indicated this in their reporting. In contrast, the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford and Cal even though the league would have been temporarily fine financially with the deal that Stanford/Cal took with the ACC (with a *vastly* reduced share) because it was determined that those schools wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves as equal members in the future.

(03-04-2024 09:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:32 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This is true for the Big Ten, but I believe the SEC has a handful of pro-rata additions baked into their contract.

Pro-rata additions just make sure the existing schools don't lose money; they don't necessarily increase money for those same schools, though.

Right. At the same time, eventually each of those schools need to pay for themselves in the long-term. The Big Ten took Washington and Oregon because their studies showed that they would ultimately add value in the long-term (so the fact that they are being paid partial revenue shares initially is just a bonus for the Big Ten). Matt Brown and others have indicated this in their reporting. In contrast, the Big Ten didn’t take Stanford and Cal even though the league would have been temporarily fine financially with the deal that Stanford/Cal took with the ACC (with a *vastly* reduced share) because it was determined that those schools wouldn’t be able to pay for themselves as equal members in the future.

All of that is correct. I think the better way of looking at it is, would NCST, VT and Virginia generate as much football revenue as South Carolina? Just like the premise every school cannot be a king, every addition needs to generate some money and valuable content, but not necessarily Alabama or Texas value.

I get the $100 million average per team argument, but if the SEC and B1G are creating a college NFL, the value will come if they p8ck the best schools for rivalries and sufficiently large fanbases.

(03-04-2024 09:37 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I’m a pretty big believer that conferences will only expand if they make more money per school for existing members.

At a certain point, math gets in the way.

The financial bar is *higher* for team #20 in the Big Ten and SEC than they were for team #16. Similarly, the bar is higher for team #24 than team #20.

There is no school in history that had more leverage to get whoever it wanted into a conference than Texas. We saw from the emails released in 2010 that they were insisting upon bringing Texas Tech to wherever it moved or else there would be no deal. The then-Pac-10 actually offered that and there were Big 12 schools that actually SIGNED documents to join that league, but Texas eventually backed out.

If Texas ultimately left the Big 12 with only Oklahoma (who is a valuable blue blood in its own right), then I just don’t see how UNC can force anyone to take NC State. I’m not saying that NC State doesn’t have value, but it’s simply not enough to add to the Big Ten or SEC and UNC itself isn’t so overwhelming valuable (in the way that Texas was) for a package deal to make sense.

The collapse of the Pac-12 really showed a LOT: it takes a Washington/Oregon-level brand to add money to the Big Ten (and by extension, the SEC), a combo of large market and elite academics isn’t good enough anymore (or else Stanford and Cal would be in the Big Ten), and there are a bunch of schools that are worth *something* (e.g. the Four Corners schools) but not necessarily enough to include in the Big Ten or SEC.

There are a lot of schools in the ACC that are like the Four Corners and Stanford/Cal, so there are a lot of schools with *some* value. However, I can count on one hand the number of ACC schools with Washington/Oregon-level value (and you’d probably have at least 1 or 2 fingers left over). I think many people vastly overrate the number of ACC schools that add money to the Big Ten/SEC, but paradoxically underrate how many schools have Four Corners-level value (where the ACC would survive even if it lost its 4 most valuable schools).

I think you are undervaluing how big of dogs Cal and Stanford are in football media revenue value It just doesn't matter how great their academics are if no one watches their games.

National, or at least large regional brands playing national brands that are rivals or are located where they could be rivals to large national brands, is what matters. No one outside of Cal or Stanford and the fans of the teams they play would watch them. Now compare them to say Virginia Tech and NCST. People would watch these schools play Tennessee, Georgia and the rest of the SEC. Tenn vs VT would be huge imo.

And I think people have it in their heads that this is just about academic elitism with respect to Stanford and Cal and are totally in “What happened last year must mean that it’s permanent” mode. Stanford was in the top 4 of football viewership for the Pac-12 consistently since 2010. They were a straight up better football program than either USC or Texas during the 2010s (much less Tennessee and Virginia Tech). When Stanford was playing well, LOTS of people watched. The viewership data shows it and it’s not ancient data, either.) Add in that Stanford and Cal are directly located in a large market that’s inordinately important for our economy (as the center of the tech industry) and produces a ton of top level athletes in virtually every sport for recruiting means that these schools do have everything that you could want in expansion candidates that aren’t just the handful of top football brand names… and that still wasn’t enough.

Believe me: I AM the “markets/academics” guy more than anyone else and I can recognize my 2010 framework is over. This is about pure, unambiguous massive football brands at this point for the Big Ten and SEC. My main issue is that many people strangely overstate how many schools are left outside of the Big Ten and SEC that are truly those types of brands. Like I’ve said, you can count the number of schools that fit that criteria on hand and still have fingers left over.

(03-04-2024 09:10 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 02:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2024 01:02 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  North Carolina could perhaps try to negotiate a place in a P2 league for NC State by offering to bring Duke along.

It would be interesting to see how the money works. The revenue boost of adding UNC+Duke could help justify an invitation for the Wolfpack, especially if schools are willing to make arrangements involving partial shares.

A P2 destination for three NC schools with both big public universities included: this could enable the crafting of a financial plan that would mollify the NC Board of Governors (per their newly enacted policy).

At 18? No.

At 20? No.

At 24? Yes. But likely only in the SEC. North Carolina, Duke, N.C. State, Virginia, and Virginia Tech will move to any better paying conference which would take all 5.

The Big 10 if it wants to make a reasonable and money saving move to divisions of 6 with a conference of 24 simply wouldn't have enough slots. The SEC would.

The SEC would still have a slot for a second Florida school and it wouldn't matter that much if it was FSU or Miami. They would still have room for a needed 6th Western school in Kansas. And could then decide between Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. With Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia in hand the need for Louisville wouldn't be that great. Georgia Tech is a very nice academic addition, but not particularly strong in any sport and lagging in revenue production and with Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and Georgia drawing from the Atlanta market adding Clemson would bring another football value multiplier and also pick up a bit of the Atlanta market. I think Clemson would be #8.

But 24 members is the size that must be attained for this to happen at all.

You have been including Kansas in your SEC expansionsion hypothticals for a few weeks consistently. Now you have also added Duke, which is in part more likely in that either Duke and Kansas both get invited or neither gets invited. Either basketball matters, or in their cases, big brand basketball matters, or it doesn't. It probably doesn't. If that is true, nothing else that makes them advantageous to the SEC matters either.

We all adjust details to fit the landscape, but JR has been steadfast for a long time about three things:
1. Kansas is a plus for the SEC
2. A second Florida school is desired by the SEC
3. We can expect big changes happening faster than many have expected
3a. This includes anything about the ACC that has the year '2036' printed on it

If you see a JR expansion scenario that doesn't mention Kansas to the SEC, call the FBI. Kidnappers are posting from his account.