(10-26-2025 06:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(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:  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.

ND currently has the following SEC games on its future schedules:

Home and home series with Alabama in 2029 and 2030, Texas in 2028 and 2029, and Florida in 2031 and 2032.

ND played Texas A&M and Arkansas this season.

It played Texas A&M last season and completed a recent home/home with Georgia.

As someone on here said, ND has become very comfortable with scheduling SEC opponents.

(10-27-2025 10:18 AM)WhidbeyWolf 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.

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.

You said their basketball was going to be mediocre, which is ridiculous. If Davis doesn't do it they'll bring in someone else who does. UNC isn't going to be mediocre at basketball for long, if ever.

(10-27-2025 11:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:18 AM)WhidbeyWolf 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.

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.

You said their basketball was going to be mediocre, which is ridiculous. If Davis doesn't do it they'll bring in someone else who does. UNC isn't going to be mediocre at basketball for long, if ever.

Agreed they may not be mediocre for long. If not for Bubba, they wouldn't even Dance last year; then fell on their face. Decades since that happened to them.
We'll see.

(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?

Great post, even though I know that the last paragraph is aimed at me.

No doubt our leaders, SEC office, Presidents, ADs, etc etc, have seen what's happened in the B1G. Fewer PSU-Michigan games, more Illinois-UCLA. Their ratings are still rising, but not nearly as fast as the SEC's or even the ACC's ratings. If Fox, NBC or CBS had the ACC instead of the Big 12, the ACC would look even better right now b/c they'd be competing with the B1G for those 3 OTA slots every weekend instead of the SEC.

FWIW, we don't need anybody to join the SEC and win 3 titles in 10 years. A reasonable estimation of FSU or Clemson in the SEC would be OU. Here's their breakdown:

Record after 1.666 years: 12-9

Top rated broadcasts:

2025: OU-Texas wk 7, 8.73m #1 for the week
2025: OU-Auburn wk 4, 6.12m, #2 for the week
2025: OU-Michigan wk 2, 9.67m, #1 for the week (more double #2 for the week in fact)
2025: OU- Ole Miss wk 9, ? - very likely 6-8m again, will find out in a couple days

2024: OU-Tennessee wk 4, 6.27m, #2 for the week (and only .05m from #1)
2024: OU-Auburn wk 5, 5.04m, #2 for the week
2024: OU-Texas wk 7, 7.63m, #2 for the week
2024: OU-Alabama wk 13, 6.98m, #2 for the week

Those numbers compare quite favorably with A&M from 2024/25, and A&M is 16-5 over that time period. I'd say that FSU/Clemson/Miami could reasonably be expected to go somewhere between 12-9 and 16-5 over their first 21 games after joining the SEC, and they wouldn't need OU's stellar numbers to justify the invite. I'm pretty sure that the SEC office and our Presidents would be plenty happy if they run more like A&M's good but not great numbers. And, when they do have great seasons, or start off #2 in the preseason like Clemson did this year, then their numbers will likely skyrocket. We can also look at Clemson's and FSU's 2025 numbers to see that they don't need to win even half their games to pump out some good numbers.

None of the above means that anybody is a slam dunk addition, but it does show that several ACC schools have the potential to add to the SEC's already very strong ratings, and thus more than carry their share of the load in the next tv deal in 2034.

(10-27-2025 08:37 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  You think the SEC is worried about a 24 team league that includes Arizona State, UCLA, Rutgers, Clemson Northwestern, and Stanford?

Absolutely. It's not just about strength of schedule, or national championships, number of teams in the top 25, etc.

The SEC is in a great spot, but if the B1G aggressively takes the top of the ACC by striking first (and potentially using this private equity money to fund a raid of the ACC and Big XII?), it really limits the SEC's future options.

(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.

$$$$$$$$$

Now, I actually do agree that the hesitation is exactly what you’ve stated: if you have a Super League of 20 elite brands, then by definition, 10 of those elite brands are going to finish in the bottom half of the league… and too many seasons like that will mean that they’re not elite anymore.

So, that is where I’m a little skeptical. Whether Ohio State and Alabama are cool with sharing the same TV money as Rutgers and Mississippi State is a fair question, but they may still want to be able to have part of their schedule still with Rutgers and Mississippi State because they need to maintain their elite status.

On the other hand, 10-7 or even 9-8 gets you into to the playoffs in the NFL, so I do think fans would adjust quickly to different standards of what a “good” record looks like in the context of a Super League much more than what a lot of people here may believe (just as the standards in the 12-team playoff era are different than the 4-team CFP or 2-team BCS eras).

In any event, the whole reason why Super League proposals exist are because of the money. That is and what will always be the appeal.

(10-27-2025 11:27 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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?

Great post, even though I know that the last paragraph is aimed at me.

No doubt our leaders, SEC office, Presidents, ADs, etc etc, have seen what's happened in the B1G. Fewer PSU-Michigan games, more Illinois-UCLA. Their ratings are still rising, but not nearly as fast as the SEC's or even the ACC's ratings. If Fox, NBC or CBS had the ACC instead of the Big 12, the ACC would look even better right now b/c they'd be competing with the B1G for those 3 OTA slots every weekend instead of the SEC.

FWIW, we don't need anybody to join the SEC and win 3 titles in 10 years. A reasonable estimation of FSU or Clemson in the SEC would be OU. Here's their breakdown:

Record after 1.666 years: 12-9

Top rated broadcasts:

2025: OU-Texas wk 7, 8.73m #1 for the week
2025: OU-Auburn wk 4, 6.12m, #2 for the week
2025: OU-Michigan wk 2, 9.67m, #1 for the week (more double #2 for the week in fact)
2025: OU- Ole Miss wk 9, ? - very likely 6-8m again, will find out in a couple days

2024: OU-Tennessee wk 4, 6.27m, #2 for the week (and only .05m from #1)
2024: OU-Auburn wk 5, 5.04m, #2 for the week
2024: OU-Texas wk 7, 7.63m, #2 for the week
2024: OU-Alabama wk 13, 6.98m, #2 for the week

Those numbers compare quite favorably with A&M from 2024/25, and A&M is 16-5 over that time period. I'd say that FSU/Clemson/Miami could reasonably be expected to go somewhere between 12-9 and 16-5 over their first 21 games after joining the SEC, and they wouldn't need OU's stellar numbers to justify the invite. I'm pretty sure that the SEC office and our Presidents would be plenty happy if they run more like A&M's good but not great numbers. And, when they do have great seasons, or start off #2 in the preseason like Clemson did this year, then their numbers will likely skyrocket. We can also look at Clemson's and FSU's 2025 numbers to see that they don't need to win even half their games to pump out some good numbers.

None of the above means that anybody is a slam dunk addition, but it does show that several ACC schools have the potential to add to the SEC's already very strong ratings, and thus more than carry their share of the load in the next tv deal in 2034.

ESPN doesn't get a full share of the ACCN. They get a helluva lot more. The ACCN and SECN are structured identically. ESPN gets 50% of the NET profits of each network. Both networks have an in state rate and an out of state rate. Each conference makes the same amount of money for the out of state and in state rates combined but the out of state and in state rates vary by about a dime.

The ACC media contract pushes about 34 million and the ACCN makes up the difference. The reason movement is likely is because the new SEC deal will pay between 72 to 77 million depending upon final details which haven't been disclosed as of yet. It's the near doubling of the contract itself more than the conference networks which will cause the movement whether to the SEC or Big Ten.

Where Dawgma is correct that the AAC, ACC, and SEC are deliberately price tiered now. Where the movement will take place is with those brands that can make ESPN more revenue if placed in a different tier. Remember ESPN also holds 50% of the Big 12's T1 and T2 rights and all of their T3 rights. So the fluidity is between the AAC to the ACC or Big 12 and from the ACC or Big 12 to the SEC.

Neither FOX nor ESPN held PAC 12 rights. They each leased 50% of them. Neither had a stake in the PACN. That's why implosion was possible because each school lost didn't really impact either network's investment since neither was actually invested in anything with the PAC 12. FOX owns 59% of the BTN. They are invested. FOX owns 50% of the Big 12's T1 and T2 rights for the contracted period, they are invested. The movement that imploded the PAC came at the end of the lease but didn't damage any extraneous partnership in which the networks were invested. Now if the Big 12 never gets a network it is possible that they could suffer further damage, but there is no reason why that should happen since they represent the second tier level of holdings of both FOX and ESPN, and who knows with ESPN holding their T3 rights if there is a market for T3 Big 12 rights profitable enough to sustain a conference network they may one day have one.

If you consider that ESPN could move North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Miami or Florida State to the SEC without impacting the ACCN and growing the SECN then you can see how they can make money from the hoops associations, and the SECN expansion. If the subsequently bring in additional schools to replace the departing ACC schools and those come from states not currently in the ACC lineup they make more on the ACCN as well.

Notre Dame can absolutely have scheduling alliances with both the ACC and SEC and build a credible schedule accordingly and that too benefits ESPN when the game is an away game for the Irish. The House of Mouse is downright incestuous when it comes to money making arrangements.

(10-27-2025 11:46 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 08:37 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  You think the SEC is worried about a 24 team league that includes Arizona State, UCLA, Rutgers, Clemson Northwestern, and Stanford?

Absolutely. It's not just about strength of schedule, or national championships, number of teams in the top 25, etc.

The SEC is in a great spot, but if the B1G aggressively takes the top of the ACC by striking first (and potentially using this private equity money to fund a raid of the ACC and Big XII?), it really limits the SEC's future options.

There are 4 schools that have potential to add to the P2 (or 5 if you count ND). All of the rest are worth maybe a half share up to a 3/4 share each. We should strike first and take UNC/FSU/Miami/Clemson. Then, if the B1G does anything at all, it won't matter to us. They could take the top 10 from the M2 after those 4 and not get as much value as those 4 bring.

(10-27-2025 11:21 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:18 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

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

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

You said their basketball was going to be mediocre, which is ridiculous. If Davis doesn't do it they'll bring in someone else who does. UNC isn't going to be mediocre at basketball for long, if ever.

Agreed they may not be mediocre for long. If not for Bubba, they wouldn't even Dance last year; then fell on their face. Decades since that happened to them.
We'll see.

Actually, they absolutely blew out SDSU and proved they belonged in the Dance.

So long as a Southern only strategy works, and the number of TV windows are limited, there is not really much value for SEC expansion. Perhaps this changes with a multi-partner media contract and a 10+1 scheduling model instead of the already expanded 9+1. Who adds to the ratings? Who adds to the media value? UNC and UVa are often mentioned because ESPN is more open to a new DMAs for the SEC than for those who look and feel like SEC schools but whose fans pretty much already are regular SEC viewers (i.e., Clemson and FSU).

It really comes down to whether the networks are willing to pay for the additional schools and whether there is a new window available for the SEC to sell them. The SEC already places three prime games on Saturday network, even after spillover content still has enough to sell a piece to TBS. Even going 9+1 was a difficult sell, as that extra week of SEC vs SEC starts bumping up against the Baseball playoffs. When I look at growth potential I can a SEC Friday Night game in exchange for adding two schools. I have a hard time seeing more opportunities.

I see a similar problem for the B1G, although they actually have more potential as their model is geographically national and they have multiple networks. But beyond Notre Dame, Florida State, Clemson (whom it is hard to see the B1G having much interest in) and North Carolina (who are clearly looking SEC), it's hard to see anyone with the ratings to justify the move.

The upside is all about bringing in enough extra money to justify the extra hassle, the lower frequency of second rivalry games and other inconveniences like weeknight football games, of adding a couple schools. For the SEC such schools have to be large whales.

(10-27-2025 12:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So long as a Southern only strategy works, and the number of TV windows are limited, there is not really much value for SEC expansion. Perhaps this changes with a multi-partner media contract and a 10+1 scheduling model instead of the already expanded 9+1. Who adds to the ratings? Who adds to the media value? UNC and UVa are often mentioned because ESPN is more open to a new DMAs for the SEC than for those who look and feel like SEC schools but whose fans pretty much already are regular SEC viewers (i.e., Clemson and FSU).

It really comes down to whether the networks are willing to pay for the additional schools and whether there is a new window available for the SEC to sell them. The SEC already places three prime games on Saturday network, even after spillover content still has enough to sell a piece to TBS. Even going 9+1 was a difficult sell, as that extra week of SEC vs SEC starts bumping up against the Baseball playoffs. When I look at growth potential I can a SEC Friday Night game in exchange for adding two schools. I have a hard time seeing more opportunities.

I see a similar problem for the B1G, although they actually have more potential as their model is geographically national and they have multiple networks. But beyond Notre Dame, Florida State, Clemson (whom it is hard to see the B1G having much interest in) and North Carolina (who are clearly looking SEC), it's hard to see anyone with the ratings to justify the move.

The upside is all about bringing in enough extra money to justify the extra hassle, the lower frequency of second rivalry games and other inconveniences like weeknight football games, of adding a couple schools. For the SEC such schools have to be large whales.

Friday is the play I expect and for 2 games. Having a better-quality game on the SECN to go with the two they usually have would keep subscriptions up too.

(10-27-2025 11:56 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:21 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:18 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

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

You said their basketball was going to be mediocre, which is ridiculous. If Davis doesn't do it they'll bring in someone else who does. UNC isn't going to be mediocre at basketball for long, if ever.

Agreed they may not be mediocre for long. If not for Bubba, they wouldn't even Dance last year; then fell on their face. Decades since that happened to them.
We'll see.

Actually, they absolutely blew out SDSU and proved they belonged in the Dance.

The wolf guy is a hater.

It's a shame that he spends all of his time on snarky comments, it's possible that he might actually have a useful thought every now and then.

(10-27-2025 12:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:56 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:21 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:15 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:18 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  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.

You said their basketball was going to be mediocre, which is ridiculous. If Davis doesn't do it they'll bring in someone else who does. UNC isn't going to be mediocre at basketball for long, if ever.

Agreed they may not be mediocre for long. If not for Bubba, they wouldn't even Dance last year; then fell on their face. Decades since that happened to them.
We'll see.

Actually, they absolutely blew out SDSU and proved they belonged in the Dance.

The wolf guy is a hater.

It's a shame that he spends all of his time on snarky comments, it's possible that he might actually have a useful thought every now and then.

Ahh, the play-in game. My bad.
Actually, I've let you guys alone for a while. As long as you know I'm watching, correcting the Carolina Way where I can. Might take awhile. : cheers:

Oh, Lubin(that guy you didn't want anymore?) drilled in 18 points, the other night. Thanks!

JRsec,

That is why I think it'll be two schools in 2030, either UNC & UVa or UNC & FSU with a new Friday Night game. It is possible two Friday night games, with the secondary on ESPN2. Is that enough to bring on a 3rd and 4th at 50% share (think UW & UO to the B1G with an agreed upgraded FOX Friday night as the equivalent), maybe. Or would the SEC simply pocket the extra cash for that ESPN2 game? Note this would probably come at the expense of the Big 12 or AAC losing that slot.

(10-27-2025 01:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

That is why I think it'll be two schools in 2030, either UNC & UVa or UNC & FSU with a new Friday Night game. It is possible two Friday night games, with the secondary on ESPN2. Is that enough to bring on a 3rd and 4th at 50% share (think UW & UO to the B1G with an agreed upgraded FOX Friday night as the equivalent), maybe. Or would the SEC simply pocket the extra cash for that ESPN2 game? Note this would probably come at the expense of the Big 12 or AAC losing that slot.

I don't see the SEC giving up equal revenue distribution. It is a core value for them. Instead, and this has been the case all along, if ESPN needed to shelter additional product in the SEC to prevent its defection to the Big Ten they have pro rata slots at their disposal to make that happen. I agree the SEC could stop comfortably at 18 with FSU and UNC or FSU and Kansas.

The issues are:
North Carolina and Duke want to travel as a pair.
The SEC would like the Virginia market.
The SEC wants to make sure it has the dominant position in Florida.
Does the Big Ten stand at 18? If so only two is likely. If not 4 is the minimum.

And remember that indeed 2 Friday night games comes at someone's expense. So too would extra games on ESPN2, or ESPNU. ESPN and ESPNU currently average less than 2 million in viewership. It's possible that solid SEC or SEC vs a rated out of conference school could get higher. It is possible that ABC might like a Friday night game as well. What they are doing with 3 key games on Saturday is currently ruling the ratings. If ABC had 2 games on Friday night, they would rule that as well. A 6:30 Eastern game followed by a 9 PM Central game is very workable.

There's a lot to be determined. The Big Ten and SEC will wind up with equal numbers whether that is at 18, 20, 22, or larger. If they form the new upper tier and agree on its governance rules, then expect equal numbers where each school gets a vote.

(10-27-2025 12:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So long as a Southern only strategy works, and the number of TV windows are limited, there is not really much value for SEC expansion. Perhaps this changes with a multi-partner media contract and a 10+1 scheduling model instead of the already expanded 9+1. Who adds to the ratings? Who adds to the media value? UNC and UVa are often mentioned because ESPN is more open to a new DMAs for the SEC than for those who look and feel like SEC schools but whose fans pretty much already are regular SEC viewers (i.e., Clemson and FSU).

It really comes down to whether the networks are willing to pay for the additional schools and whether there is a new window available for the SEC to sell them. The SEC already places three prime games on Saturday network, even after spillover content still has enough to sell a piece to TBS. Even going 9+1 was a difficult sell, as that extra week of SEC vs SEC starts bumping up against the Baseball playoffs. When I look at growth potential I can a SEC Friday Night game in exchange for adding two schools. I have a hard time seeing more opportunities.

I see a similar problem for the B1G, although they actually have more potential as their model is geographically national and they have multiple networks. But beyond Notre Dame, Florida State, Clemson (whom it is hard to see the B1G having much interest in) and North Carolina (who are clearly looking SEC), it's hard to see anyone with the ratings to justify the move.

The upside is all about bringing in enough extra money to justify the extra hassle, the lower frequency of second rivalry games and other inconveniences like weeknight football games, of adding a couple schools. For the SEC such schools have to be large whales.

That leaves just FSU as potentially going to the Big Ten, then.

(10-27-2025 01:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 12:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So long as a Southern only strategy works, and the number of TV windows are limited, there is not really much value for SEC expansion. Perhaps this changes with a multi-partner media contract and a 10+1 scheduling model instead of the already expanded 9+1. Who adds to the ratings? Who adds to the media value? UNC and UVa are often mentioned because ESPN is more open to a new DMAs for the SEC than for those who look and feel like SEC schools but whose fans pretty much already are regular SEC viewers (i.e., Clemson and FSU).

It really comes down to whether the networks are willing to pay for the additional schools and whether there is a new window available for the SEC to sell them. The SEC already places three prime games on Saturday network, even after spillover content still has enough to sell a piece to TBS. Even going 9+1 was a difficult sell, as that extra week of SEC vs SEC starts bumping up against the Baseball playoffs. When I look at growth potential I can a SEC Friday Night game in exchange for adding two schools. I have a hard time seeing more opportunities.

I see a similar problem for the B1G, although they actually have more potential as their model is geographically national and they have multiple networks. But beyond Notre Dame, Florida State, Clemson (whom it is hard to see the B1G having much interest in) and North Carolina (who are clearly looking SEC), it's hard to see anyone with the ratings to justify the move.

The upside is all about bringing in enough extra money to justify the extra hassle, the lower frequency of second rivalry games and other inconveniences like weeknight football games, of adding a couple schools. For the SEC such schools have to be large whales.

That leaves just FSU as potentially going to the Big Ten, then.

Miami is perpetually the forgotten Big Ten expansion candidate on this forum for some reason. Look at the TV ratings for them this season when they’re competitive again: they have as high of a ceiling as anyone in the ACC and their school actually fits the Big Ten culturally to the extent that it’s not a Midwestern school (or at least compared to the SEC).

The SEC is never adding Ohio State, Michigan USC, or Penn State. I doubt they would add Notre Dame either. No B1G school is coming to the SEC. The fans are already having a hard time swallowing Mizzou, Oklahoma, and the Texas schools. Forget California or the Midwestern schools. The fanbase won't buy it.

Honestly, the SEC's best play is for the ACC to cement itself as a stable third conference. The SEC can still schedule the top of the ACC as it desires. They can pad their OOC wins with the bottom of the ACC.

It costs the SEC little or nothing for the ACC to stay in tact. There is no need to carve up the pie for any ACC school if they stay in the ACC.

My guess is that TV makes more money with a stable ACC as well. As much as some of the ACC wants to leave, they may not have anywhere to go. Everyone but the teams trying to leave are probably better off with them staying where they are.

That's the problem with realignment. Where YOU want to be doesn't really count. It's a decision made by other people. No matter what you have to offer, you can't control them.

(10-27-2025 01:59 PM)Claw Wrote:  The SEC is never adding Ohio State, Michigan USC, or Penn State. I doubt they would add Notre Dame either. No B1G school is coming to the SEC. The fans are already having a hard time swallowing Mizzou, Oklahoma, and the Texas schools. Forget California or the Midwestern schools. The fanbase won't buy it.

Honestly, the SEC's best play is for the ACC to cement itself as a stable third conference. The SEC can still schedule the top of the ACC as it desires. They can pad their OOC wins with the bottom of the ACC.

It costs the SEC little or nothing for the ACC to stay in tact. There is no need to carve up the pie for any ACC school if they stay in the ACC.

My guess is that TV makes more money with a stable ACC as well. As much as some of the ACC wants to leave, they may not have anywhere to go. Everyone but the teams trying to leave are probably better off with them staying where they are.

That's the problem with realignment. Where YOU want to be doesn't really count. It's a decision made by other people. No matter what you have to offer, you can't control them.

The SEC has been content to leave the ACC alone as a great buffer for decades. The issue is the SEC's chief competitor wants into that region for markets and other much less mentioned reasons.

ESPN is as threatened by that potential as the SEC.

Therefore, the preemptive move is to remove those schools which are most appealing to the Big Ten by placing them in the SEC. This secures ESPN's holdings and secures the SEC's control over its own markets and region, while slightly expanding those markets.

Had the Big Ten gotten fat and happy off of the carcass of the PAC 12 this wouldn't be an issue. They want into the Southeast so it's an issue!

(10-27-2025 01:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 01:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 12:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  So long as a Southern only strategy works, and the number of TV windows are limited, there is not really much value for SEC expansion. Perhaps this changes with a multi-partner media contract and a 10+1 scheduling model instead of the already expanded 9+1. Who adds to the ratings? Who adds to the media value? UNC and UVa are often mentioned because ESPN is more open to a new DMAs for the SEC than for those who look and feel like SEC schools but whose fans pretty much already are regular SEC viewers (i.e., Clemson and FSU).

It really comes down to whether the networks are willing to pay for the additional schools and whether there is a new window available for the SEC to sell them. The SEC already places three prime games on Saturday network, even after spillover content still has enough to sell a piece to TBS. Even going 9+1 was a difficult sell, as that extra week of SEC vs SEC starts bumping up against the Baseball playoffs. When I look at growth potential I can a SEC Friday Night game in exchange for adding two schools. I have a hard time seeing more opportunities.

I see a similar problem for the B1G, although they actually have more potential as their model is geographically national and they have multiple networks. But beyond Notre Dame, Florida State, Clemson (whom it is hard to see the B1G having much interest in) and North Carolina (who are clearly looking SEC), it's hard to see anyone with the ratings to justify the move.

The upside is all about bringing in enough extra money to justify the extra hassle, the lower frequency of second rivalry games and other inconveniences like weeknight football games, of adding a couple schools. For the SEC such schools have to be large whales.

That leaves just FSU as potentially going to the Big Ten, then.

Miami is perpetually the forgotten Big Ten expansion candidate on this forum for some reason. Look at the TV ratings for them this season when they’re competitive again: they have as high of a ceiling as anyone in the ACC and their school actually fits the Big Ten culturally to the extent that it’s not a Midwestern school (or at least compared to the SEC).

I was just working off of Stugray's list.....