(10-26-2025 04:52 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:18 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

But with mediocre basketball, would unc still bring significant market? Kinda where they are now. That's my point. Nobody's being paid for their history.

Teams absolutely do get paid for their history. Texas was bad for a decade or more in football but still made it into the SEC the very moment they requested it. Why? A fanbase built through decades of high level football. History builds your fanbase, builds your stadium, builds your recruiting, builds national familiarity, etc.

Are we really in a world where people are going around and claiming that UNC and Duke's basketball programs are uninteresting due to a change of coaches? Come on, be serious.

(10-26-2025 03:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

You have no idea whether the SEC has an appetite for expansion. Public comments by any conference regarding expansion should be taken with a Washington DC Monument sized pillar of salt.

Taking only FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus UNC, brings the traditional powers to others ratio to 1.5:1. Maybe that is ideal, but I doubt it. Too many Batmans and too few Robins. 1:1 is a better ratio, imo.

I also think you are underestimating the long term negative implications of the B1G getting a foothold in the southern coastal states, while also most likely having the majority of the rest of the country outside the greater southern region.

Choosing a lawful monopoly within your region is a safer bet, imo.

(10-26-2025 05:08 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

You have no idea whether the SEC has an appetite for expansion. Public comments by any conference regarding expansion should be taken with a Washington DC monument sized pillar of salt.

Taking only FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus UNC, brings the traditional powers to others ratio to 1.5:1. Maybe that is ideal, but I doubt it. Too many Batmans and too few Robins. 1:1 is a better ratio, imo.

I also think you are underestimating the long term negative implications of the B1G getting a foothold in the southern coastal states, while also most likely having the majority of the rest of the country outside the greater southern region.

Choosing a lawful monopoly within your region is a safer bet, imo.

Have you considered it may be done in one step with 4 schools:

Step #1: Absorb possible Big Ten targets: North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, FSU.

If this discourages Big Ten expansion in the Southeast, then the SEC stops. If additional southern schools are contacted you have step #2: You add whichever ones they show interest in: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Duke or N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or possibly Kansas.

If they don't show interest the SEC is done and likely the Big Ten seeks 2 more out of the former PAC 12 schools, or possibly Kansas.

I believe ESPN will want to keep the ACC alive and viable and will only shelter those they have to in the SEC. It's easier to hold value in the ACC if most of the football schools remain.

T do believe that the dominant 8 you speak of is a potentiality, but as a last resort by ESPN to keep their revenue model in order through the SEC. But if they can, I believe they would like to build a strong second tier product in the ACC if it is an acceptable home for Notre Dame to continue their affiliation in all sports but football.

(10-26-2025 04:55 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:52 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:18 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

But with mediocre basketball, would unc still bring significant market? Kinda where they are now. That's my point. Nobody's being paid for their history.

Teams absolutely do get paid for their history. Texas was bad for a decade or more in football but still made it into the SEC the very moment they requested it. Why? A fanbase built through decades of high level football. History builds your fanbase, builds your stadium, builds your recruiting, builds national familiarity, etc.

Are we really in a world where people are going around and claiming that UNC and Duke's basketball programs are uninteresting due to a change of coaches? Come on, be serious.

NIL and the wealth of the P2 is changing college basketball before our eyes. Look at how well the SEC did last year. The B1G was apparently still a little more focused on spending money to improve their football programs, but there is no doubt they will spend just as much as the SEC in getting basketball talent in the near future. Outside the P2 and the Magnificent 7, only Duke appears to be matching, or rather exceeding, P2 basketball spending levels. Maybe a handful of others can keep up, but moving forward the best basketball will be played in the P2. Money will dictate that.

(10-26-2025 07:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I mean I personally think the only expansion move. that really makes sense. is the SEC adding Ohio State, Michigan USC and either Notre Dame or Penn State.

The average value of the Big tenon SEC have risen to the point where additions from outside the P2 don't make sense unless it's Notre Dame

100% agree

(10-26-2025 05:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:55 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:52 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:18 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

But with mediocre basketball, would unc still bring significant market? Kinda where they are now. That's my point. Nobody's being paid for their history.

Teams absolutely do get paid for their history. Texas was bad for a decade or more in football but still made it into the SEC the very moment they requested it. Why? A fanbase built through decades of high level football. History builds your fanbase, builds your stadium, builds your recruiting, builds national familiarity, etc.

Are we really in a world where people are going around and claiming that UNC and Duke's basketball programs are uninteresting due to a change of coaches? Come on, be serious.

NIL and the wealth of the P2 is changing college basketball before our eyes. Look at how well the SEC did last year. The B1G was apparently still a little more focused on spending money to improve their football programs, but there is no doubt they will spend just as much as the SEC in getting basketball talent in the near future. Outside the P2 and the Magnificent 7, only Duke appears to be matching, or rather exceeding, P2 basketball spending levels. Maybe a handful of others can keep up, but moving forward the best basketball will be played in the P2. Money will dictate that.

Setting aside school-based NIL, which is of course capped as per House, UNC has just as many boosters as any other school, except they are focused on basketball instead of football. They absolutely can spend with, and above, SEC programs specifically in basketball. Basketball is also cheaper since a team has under twenty players compared to around a hundred for a football team. You really can go all in on stacking a basketball team in a way that you can't with football.

Same with Duke which punches well above its weight in alumni wealth and power.

(10-26-2025 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 05:08 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

You have no idea whether the SEC has an appetite for expansion. Public comments by any conference regarding expansion should be taken with a Washington DC monument sized pillar of salt.

Taking only FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus UNC, brings the traditional powers to others ratio to 1.5:1. Maybe that is ideal, but I doubt it. Too many Batmans and too few Robins. 1:1 is a better ratio, imo.

I also think you are underestimating the long term negative implications of the B1G getting a foothold in the southern coastal states, while also most likely having the majority of the rest of the country outside the greater southern region.

Choosing a lawful monopoly within your region is a safer bet, imo.

Have you considered it may be done in one step with 4 schools:

Step #1: Absorb possible Big Ten targets: North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, FSU.

If this discourages Big Ten expansion in the Southeast, then the SEC stops. If additional southern schools are contacted you have step #2: You add whichever ones they show interest in: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Duke or N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or possibly Kansas.

If they don't show interest the SEC is done and likely the Big Ten seeks 2 more out of the former PAC 12 schools, or possibly Kansas.

I believe ESPN will want to keep the ACC alive and viable and will only shelter those they have to in the SEC. It's easier to hold value in the ACC if most of the football schools remain.

T do believe that the dominant 8 you speak of is a potentiality, but as a last resort by ESPN to keep their revenue model in order through the SEC. But if they can, I believe they would like to build a strong second tier product in the ACC if it is an acceptable home for Notre Dame to continue their affiliation in all sports but football.

Oh, I have certainly considered adding 4 ACC schools and giving conditional reservations to 4 others. But there are 2 problems with that.

First, until a school is in your conference there is no way to be certain they would not go to the B1G. Leaving out VT, GT, and Clemson from the initial grouping leaves too much risk of the B1G making them an offer they could not refuse.

Second, I believe both the SEC and ESPN want Clemson in the SEC as soon as FSU and others are invited. Maybe VT and GT also. I also think what ESPN wants is different than what most here think ESPN wants. I think ESPN wants Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and other SEC teams visiting Lane Stadium, showing the Enter Sandman pregame, and securing most viewers inability to change the channel. Like it or not, GT vs SEC teams gets good ratings. ESPN knows this. Rivalries, many renewed from the past, will be easy to market. Why would ESPN want to wait for that?

(10-26-2025 05:57 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 05:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:55 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:52 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

But with mediocre basketball, would unc still bring significant market? Kinda where they are now. That's my point. Nobody's being paid for their history.

Teams absolutely do get paid for their history. Texas was bad for a decade or more in football but still made it into the SEC the very moment they requested it. Why? A fanbase built through decades of high level football. History builds your fanbase, builds your stadium, builds your recruiting, builds national familiarity, etc.

Are we really in a world where people are going around and claiming that UNC and Duke's basketball programs are uninteresting due to a change of coaches? Come on, be serious.

NIL and the wealth of the P2 is changing college basketball before our eyes. Look at how well the SEC did last year. The B1G was apparently still a little more focused on spending money to improve their football programs, but there is no doubt they will spend just as much as the SEC in getting basketball talent in the near future. Outside the P2 and the Magnificent 7, only Duke appears to be matching, or rather exceeding, P2 basketball spending levels. Maybe a handful of others can keep up, but moving forward the best basketball will be played in the P2. Money will dictate that.

Setting aside school-based NIL, which is of course capped as per House, UNC has just as many boosters as any other school, except they are focused on basketball instead of football. They absolutely can spend with, and above, SEC programs specifically in basketball. Basketball is also cheaper since a team has under twenty players compared to around a hundred for a football team. You really can go all in on stacking a basketball team in a way that you can't with football.

Same with Duke which punches well above its weight in alumni wealth and power.

1. There is no putting aside NIL. It is the most dominating factor in college athletics.

2. The House settlement does not limit NIL. It only tries to legitimize NIL spending, which may be very hard to do.

3. I did not leave out UNC. They are part of the Magnificent 7.

4. I specifically mentioned Duke as a non-P2 outlier now, and most likely in the future.

(10-26-2025 06:13 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 05:08 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

You have no idea whether the SEC has an appetite for expansion. Public comments by any conference regarding expansion should be taken with a Washington DC monument sized pillar of salt.

Taking only FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus UNC, brings the traditional powers to others ratio to 1.5:1. Maybe that is ideal, but I doubt it. Too many Batmans and too few Robins. 1:1 is a better ratio, imo.

I also think you are underestimating the long term negative implications of the B1G getting a foothold in the southern coastal states, while also most likely having the majority of the rest of the country outside the greater southern region.

Choosing a lawful monopoly within your region is a safer bet, imo.

Have you considered it may be done in one step with 4 schools:

Step #1: Absorb possible Big Ten targets: North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, FSU.

If this discourages Big Ten expansion in the Southeast, then the SEC stops. If additional southern schools are contacted you have step #2: You add whichever ones they show interest in: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Duke or N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or possibly Kansas.

If they don't show interest the SEC is done and likely the Big Ten seeks 2 more out of the former PAC 12 schools, or possibly Kansas.

I believe ESPN will want to keep the ACC alive and viable and will only shelter those they have to in the SEC. It's easier to hold value in the ACC if most of the football schools remain.

T do believe that the dominant 8 you speak of is a potentiality, but as a last resort by ESPN to keep their revenue model in order through the SEC. But if they can, I believe they would like to build a strong second tier product in the ACC if it is an acceptable home for Notre Dame to continue their affiliation in all sports but football.

Oh, I have certainly considered adding 4 ACC schools and giving conditional reservations to 4 others. But there are 2 problems with that.

First, until a school is in your conference there is no way to be certain they would not go to the B1G. Leaving out VT, GT, and Clemson from the initial grouping leaves too much risk of the B1G making them an offer they could not refuse.

Second, I believe both the SEC and ESPN want Clemson in the SEC as soon as FSU and others are invited. Maybe VT and GT.also. I also think what ESPN wants is different than what most here think ESPN wants. I think ESPN wants Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and other SEC teams visiting Lane Stadium, showing the Enter Sandman pregame, and securing most viewers inability to change the channel. Like it or not, GT vs SEC teams gets good ratings. ESPN knows this. Rivalries, many renewed from the past, will be easy to market. Why would ESPN want to wait for that?

1. Because they want to keep a piece of Notre Dame.

2. They do still have the ACC schools under contract until 2036 and honoring that contract is the best means of avoiding damages. It's cheaper to maintain viability deeper into the contracted period by moving only a few at first.

3. I don't see any interest from the Big Ten, mostly due to FOX and CBS, in N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or Clemson. The Big Ten might be interested, as they were with Stanford and Cal, but if FOX can't monetize it effectively, they won't pay for it. Virginia Tech is underfunded. N.C. State is third choice in North Carolina for the Big Ten, if then. Clemson doesn't meet metrics. They'll be there when the SEC wants them. And it's not about football value. It's about all revenue streams and political pull.

4. ESPN has the pulse of both conferences. They'll know if a Part 2 is needed and who is to be asked. I can see as few as 40 between the SEC and Big Ten if the Big 12 and ACC are to be maintained, and both networks have need of T2 and T3 material and this would make for the best kind of T2 and T3 offerings. I can see 48 between the SEC and Big Ten if we move to one M conference, and I can see 56 between the two if it becomes a duopoly. I think the networks will call the shot on ultimate size.

I like 24, think it will be 20.

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

If SEC adds Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and one random school (maybe UNC), then SEC will be a league of their own. The college football world become P1 + M3.

(10-26-2025 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:13 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 05:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 05:08 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

You have no idea whether the SEC has an appetite for expansion. Public comments by any conference regarding expansion should be taken with a Washington DC monument sized pillar of salt.

Taking only FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus UNC, brings the traditional powers to others ratio to 1.5:1. Maybe that is ideal, but I doubt it. Too many Batmans and too few Robins. 1:1 is a better ratio, imo.

I also think you are underestimating the long term negative implications of the B1G getting a foothold in the southern coastal states, while also most likely having the majority of the rest of the country outside the greater southern region.

Choosing a lawful monopoly within your region is a safer bet, imo.

Have you considered it may be done in one step with 4 schools:

Step #1: Absorb possible Big Ten targets: North Carolina, Virginia, Miami, FSU.

If this discourages Big Ten expansion in the Southeast, then the SEC stops. If additional southern schools are contacted you have step #2: You add whichever ones they show interest in: Clemson, Georgia Tech, Duke or N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or possibly Kansas.

If they don't show interest the SEC is done and likely the Big Ten seeks 2 more out of the former PAC 12 schools, or possibly Kansas.

I believe ESPN will want to keep the ACC alive and viable and will only shelter those they have to in the SEC. It's easier to hold value in the ACC if most of the football schools remain.

T do believe that the dominant 8 you speak of is a potentiality, but as a last resort by ESPN to keep their revenue model in order through the SEC. But if they can, I believe they would like to build a strong second tier product in the ACC if it is an acceptable home for Notre Dame to continue their affiliation in all sports but football.

Oh, I have certainly considered adding 4 ACC schools and giving conditional reservations to 4 others. But there are 2 problems with that.

First, until a school is in your conference there is no way to be certain they would not go to the B1G. Leaving out VT, GT, and Clemson from the initial grouping leaves too much risk of the B1G making them an offer they could not refuse.

Second, I believe both the SEC and ESPN want Clemson in the SEC as soon as FSU and others are invited. Maybe VT and GT.also. I also think what ESPN wants is different than what most here think ESPN wants. I think ESPN wants Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and other SEC teams visiting Lane Stadium, showing the Enter Sandman pregame, and securing most viewers inability to change the channel. Like it or not, GT vs SEC teams gets good ratings. ESPN knows this. Rivalries, many renewed from the past, will be easy to market. Why would ESPN want to wait for that?

1. Because they want to keep a piece of Notre Dame.

2. They do still have the ACC schools under contract until 2036 and honoring that contract is the best means of avoiding damages. It's cheaper to maintain viability deeper into the contracted period by moving only a few at first.

3. I don't see any interest from the Big Ten, mostly due to FOX and CBS, in N.C. State, Virginia Tech, or Clemson. The Big Ten might be interested, as they were with Stanford and Cal, but if FOX can't monetize it effectively, they won't pay for it. Virginia Tech is underfunded. N.C. State is third choice in North Carolina for the Big Ten, if then. Clemson doesn't meet metrics. They'll be there when the SEC wants them. And it's not about football value. It's about all revenue streams and political pull.

4. ESPN has the pulse of both conferences. They'll know if a Part 2 is needed and who is to be asked. I can see as few as 40 between the SEC and Big Ten if the Big 12 and ACC are to be maintained, and both networks have need of T2 and T3 material and this would make for the best kind of T2 and T3 offerings. I can see 48 between the SEC and Big Ten if we move to one M conference, and I can see 56 between the two if it becomes a duopoly. I think the networks will call the shot on ultimate size.

I like 24, think it will be 20.

1. This is a good point. But, there are ways to make more money with Notre Dame than the current ND-ACC. One would be ND non-football sports to the Big East and 3 or 4 football games per year scheduled against SEC teams.

2. A 24 school M1 Big12 solves most of these issues.

3. The B1G would take VT, Duke, Clemson, and GT were left available. They would not be the B1G's first choice, but that gets the B1G into the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Even if the chances are only 20% the B1G would do this, the SEC will make sure it cannot one way or another.

4. Having a pulse on teams is not the same thing as under contract.

I have studied the SEC deeply. It’s a superb conference. I’ve even figured out where they recruit their referees. This one aspect, though, needs some work.

(10-26-2025 05:08 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

You have no idea whether the SEC has an appetite for expansion. Public comments by any conference regarding expansion should be taken with a Washington DC Monument sized pillar of salt.

Taking only FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus UNC, brings the traditional powers to others ratio to 1.5:1. Maybe that is ideal, but I doubt it. Too many Batmans and too few Robins. 1:1 is a better ratio, imo.

I also think you are underestimating the long term negative implications of the B1G getting a foothold in the southern coastal states, while also most likely having the majority of the rest of the country outside the greater southern region.

Choosing a lawful monopoly within your region is a safer bet, imo.

I didn't mean "no more additions to the conference" when I said "no change". I meant that we're all happy in the SEC and there's no appetite from anybody to leave the SEC to help create a P1. As opposed to the B1G, which is having some very public issues with their new members, and some old ones, too. My worry was more that a huge addition of 8 all at once might change that calculus for several SEC schools.

I really don't understand this massive appeal for a P1 conference. Are the top teams in the BIG and the SEC that bothered by playing the lower teams that they would rather merge into a top tier conference where everyone beats each other up while going 6-6 or 7-5 and still somehow someway make the CFP?

Can someone please explain the appeal of this? Because I don't find it very appealing.

(10-26-2025 07:55 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  I really don't understand this massive appeal for a P1 conference. Are the top teams in the BIG and the SEC that bothered by playing the lower teams that they would rather merge into a top tier conference where everyone beats each other up while going 6-6 or 7-5 and still somehow someway make the CFP?

Can someone please explain the appeal of this? Because I don't find it very appealing.

It's not.

If the P2 go it alone, they paint a huge target on their backs.

If they don't, they can continue to hide behind the rest of fbs to deflect and/or share any pain.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but to get schools to be willing to open up to that kind of vulnerability would likely take backing up money trucks that dwarf current money by mega magnitudes.

SEC expansion can make sense *even if it's dilutive* if it counters moves by the B1G that at some point in the future could threaten the SEC's dominance. I don't think the SEC really wants UNC, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona St, and Stanford all in the B1G. That many big schools, big markets, and coast-to-coast league could be a big problem even if it isn't in the B1G's short-run best interest. The B1G has shown that they're pretty aggressive with expansion and willing to make very long-term bets, so the SEC might be forced to counter just to block a possible wild expansion move by the B1G.

(10-27-2025 07:36 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  SEC expansion can make sense *even if it's dilutive* if it counters moves by the B1G that at some point in the future could threaten the SEC's dominance. I don't think the SEC really wants UNC, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona St, and Stanford all in the B1G. That many big schools, big markets, and coast-to-coast league could be a big problem even if it isn't in the B1G's short-run best interest. The B1G has shown that they're pretty aggressive with expansion and willing to make very long-term bets, so the SEC might be forced to counter just to block a possible wild expansion move by the B1G.

You think the SEC is worried about a 24 team league that includes Arizona State, UCLA, Rutgers, Clemson Northwestern, and Stanford?

That's like the Ivy League's academic dominance being tested when the ACC added Syracuse and Louisville.

(10-27-2025 08:37 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 07:36 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  SEC expansion can make sense *even if it's dilutive* if it counters moves by the B1G that at some point in the future could threaten the SEC's dominance. I don't think the SEC really wants UNC, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona St, and Stanford all in the B1G. That many big schools, big markets, and coast-to-coast league could be a big problem even if it isn't in the B1G's short-run best interest. The B1G has shown that they're pretty aggressive with expansion and willing to make very long-term bets, so the SEC might be forced to counter just to block a possible wild expansion move by the B1G.

You think the SEC is worried about a 24 team league that includes Arizona State, UCLA, Rutgers, Clemson Northwestern, and Stanford?

That's like the Ivy League's academic dominance being tested when the ACC added Syracuse and Louisville.

Right. And this is a great topic that won't find much love on a realignment board lol.

The SEC is studying what the B1G has done, you better believe it. They've over-expanded and the results aren't matching up to projections. Will they go for FSU and Miami to supplement their next deal a la UO/UW? Perhaps.


• • •


ESPN already has a tiered content system in place: SEC > ACC > AAC etc. They need the content, and the ACC is actually a bargain when you consider ESPN only pays in the $20m/school range with the ACCN covering the rest. Plus they are paid a full share by the ACCN as well to further offset their expense. This is why moving upwards to eight (!) ACC schools to the SEC would be a terrible business decision unless they plan on implementing unequal revenue. Do you think Vandy, Mizzou, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss State, Auburn, and Kentucky are going to vote for that?

As for the people mentioning Clemson and FSU's ratings when they're good? Well, how do you think they'd fare in the SEC meat grinder when they haven't been consistently good in the NIL era ACC?

(10-26-2025 04:55 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:52 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:18 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

But with mediocre basketball, would unc still bring significant market? Kinda where they are now. That's my point. Nobody's being paid for their history.

Teams absolutely do get paid for their history. Texas was bad for a decade or more in football but still made it into the SEC the very moment they requested it. Why? A fanbase built through decades of high level football. History builds your fanbase, builds your stadium, builds your recruiting, builds national familiarity, etc.

Are we really in a world where people are going around and claiming that UNC and Duke's basketball programs are uninteresting due to a change of coaches? Come on, be serious.

I didn't say or imply that. Hyperbole.
They're still good programs, but it's not the K v Roy show anymore. Hope we can agree on that. And the jury's still out on Davis.
I'll pass on comparing football to basketball.

(10-27-2025 09:12 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 08:37 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 07:36 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  SEC expansion can make sense *even if it's dilutive* if it counters moves by the B1G that at some point in the future could threaten the SEC's dominance. I don't think the SEC really wants UNC, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona St, and Stanford all in the B1G. That many big schools, big markets, and coast-to-coast league could be a big problem even if it isn't in the B1G's short-run best interest. The B1G has shown that they're pretty aggressive with expansion and willing to make very long-term bets, so the SEC might be forced to counter just to block a possible wild expansion move by the B1G.

You think the SEC is worried about a 24 team league that includes Arizona State, UCLA, Rutgers, Clemson Northwestern, and Stanford?

That's like the Ivy League's academic dominance being tested when the ACC added Syracuse and Louisville.

Right. And this is a great topic that won't find much love on a realignment board lol.

The SEC is studying what the B1G has done, you better believe it. They've over-expanded and the results aren't matching up to projections. Will they go for FSU and Miami to supplement their next deal a la UO/UW? Perhaps.


• • •


ESPN already has a tiered content system in place: SEC > ACC > AAC etc. They need the content, and the ACC is actually a bargain when you consider ESPN only pays in the $20m/school range with the ACCN covering the rest. Plus they are paid a full share by the ACCN as well to further offset their expense. This is why moving upwards to eight (!) ACC schools to the SEC would be a terrible business decision unless they plan on implementing unequal revenue. Do you think Vandy, Mizzou, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss State, Auburn, and Kentucky are going to vote for that?

As for the people mentioning Clemson and FSU's ratings when they're good? Well, how do you think they'd fare in the SEC meat grinder when they haven't been consistently good in the NIL era ACC?

You could ask the same question about Auburn or Nebraska. And Auburn and Nebraska still draw. Clemson and FSU will be fine whereever they go. Notre Dame had a 20 year stretch after Lou Holtz where they didn't do much at all and they were still one of the top draws in college football.