(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

OneSockUp Wrote:

(10-27-2025 10:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If they're going to be forced to play on Friday nights if they expand, they'll no doubt do an analysis of adding that Friday night game without expansion. Throwing Kentucky vs. Auburn on Friday night this week turns a SEC Network game into a 3.5 million ESPN showcase.

I truly don't think the money will be there to expand -- there would have to be more reasons than dollar signs.

1. The money will be there because ESPN doesn't want to lose them as product. If their choice was to pay them less in the ACC and watch them leave for FOX or pay them more in the SEC then they pay them more in the SEC. And they do that to save their revenue structure.

Think about how much money you're talking about. Let's say the SEC's next media deal pays out $80 million per member. For an addition to be cash-positive they would need to add over $80 million in value per year. For them to net an additional $5 million per team per year (what the SEC just negotiated for the inconvenience of a ninth league game) these new schools would need to be worth $160 million per year!

Florida State would be a top-ten* brand in the SEC, but not much more. North Carolina is behind FSU.

Imagine being at the negotiating table and Disney says, "You're at $80 per schools right now, but if you add Florida State and North Carolina we'll up your contract by $300 million." At that point Disney is flat out telling the rest of the SEC that they are being underpaid by an insane amount.

*Alabama
Georgia
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida
LSU
Tennessee
Texas A&M

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

Initially, what you said was the case, it was driven by presidents. In 1990 and again in 1992 and in the latter 90's it was absolutely driven by presidents. Even in 2010-11 the case could be made for that in some instances. Since that time, it has been driven by corporate interests. If in 2022 it had been driven by presidents would Cal and Stanford be in the ACC? Or would they have been in the Big Ten. There are things that the SEC wants, but that wouldn't be as relevant if ESPN didn't want them as well. I started pointing out how corporations were taking over the pastime of college sports, particularly football way back in the early 2000's. I just didn't do it on this site until my first post here. Since then, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Money became the primary motivator for movement and presidents became more and more susceptible to its draw. The financial crisis in 2006-8 cemented it. All that can be said in support of your statement is that presidents give the approval along with the support of their trustees. But money is the motivator and in any business transaction the one that controls it is the one who pays.

You don't like the narrative because you fear it to be the reality and because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want. But you are a businessman, and you know very well what is driving most of the realignment. Ease of travel and culture are minor factors. Opportunity for larger payouts the primary lure. Why did Maryland join the Big Ten in 2011-12? They needed money. Why did Missouri do the same with the SEC? They needed to keep up with Nebraska who left the Big 12 for the fit of the Big Ten but also because they needed to keep pace in a world where more money was needed to remain competitive. All of the realignment of 2021 and 2022 was driven by the need of more revenue and the Alston case and the transfer portal sealed that motivation in place.

The ACC was extremely cohesive, or they would not have lasted this long. Maryland was desperate and acted early. Did Virginia or Georgia Tech leave with them? No. These schools which are considering moves now would not be considering them if the fear of losing status because of a deficit in revenue was not their primary motivation, and they wouldn't be considering the SEC or Big Ten without looking at projections given them by those conferences detailing their future revenue streams.

What their financial officers and attorneys comb through is what their projections are for total overhead and total revenue. Athletic fit, and cultural fit are way down the line from revenue, donor desires, fan desires (which are the customer base for their products) and network exposure.

My stances are based on those factors because presidents now only ceremonially have the final say. Money and exposure are the first two considerations. But you should know this. Why else would FSU be a priority for the AAU loving Big Ten and not Stanford? Money, as derived from market penetration! Why else would FSU consider the Big Ten? Money, sold as the expectation that such a relationship would get them into AAU. And that sir we both know is not how AAU membership works! They may get there one day as they are doing the necessary work themselves to improve their standing in the areas which AAU prioritizes, but it's the money and exposure they most require right now, and should the SEC have another priority they would be quite willing to entertain the Big Ten advances for money and exposure. Money helps your chances to win, and exposure appeals to lots of high school seniors especially at a time the baby bust is being felt most palpably.

if you don't like the narrative, it's because you can't stand the truth!

As long as the two primary players in college sports are FOX and ESPN/Disney the latter will likely continue to amass what it wants. FOX has the money to be a tough competitor. Disney is willing to commit it. Until that changes, my world view of the outcome in college sports will not change. The SEC and Big Ten are proxies in the corporate struggle for control of the sport. And between the two of them the SEC continues to out earn the Big Ten when all lines in the accounts receivable are counted, instead of just media money, and that one ledger line will close next Spring.

ESPN extended the ACC's contract until 2036. It signed the SEC until 2034. It set the ACC's self-reducing buyout for 2031. And all of it gives them the final say in movement which would happen between the two conferences. Technically it meets the letter of the law. Sure, an ACC school could choose to leave for the Big Ten. But it would happen while they were still under contract to ESPN and therefore ESPN would have the ability to pay the SEC to offer them more and it places them in a position to cover exit fees as needed to ensure they keep the product they want. That the SEC requires much less travel and is the better cultural fit for their consumers doesn't hurt the potential outcome either. Neither does the SEC policy of full financial inclusion on Day 1 of membership, or its exposure to the broader market.

If you can't grasp or won't accept the reality of that situation it's not the fault of this board or its posters.

(10-28-2025 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

Initially, what you said was the case, it was driven by presidents. In 1990 and again in 1992 and in the latter 90's it was absolutely driven by presidents. Even in 2010-11 the case could be made for that in some instances. Since that time, it has been driven by corporate interests. If in 2022 it had been driven by presidents would Cal and Stanford be in the ACC? Or would they have been in the Big Ten. There are things that the SEC wants, but that wouldn't be as relevant if ESPN didn't want them as well. I started pointing out how corporations were taking over the pastime of college sports, particularly football way back in the early 2000's. I just didn't do it on this site until my first post here. Since then, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Money became the primary motivator for movement and presidents became more and more susceptible to its draw. The financial crisis in 2006-8 cemented it. All that can be said in support of your statement is that presidents give the approval along with the support of their trustees. But money is the motivator and in any business transaction the one that controls it is the one who pays.

You don't like the narrative because you fear it to be the reality and because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want. But you are a businessman, and you know very well what is driving most of the realignment. Ease of travel and culture are minor factors. Opportunity for larger payouts the primary lure. Why did Maryland join the Big Ten in 2011-12? They needed money. Why did Missouri do the same with the SEC? They needed to keep up with Nebraska who left the Big 12 for the fit of the Big Ten but also because they needed to keep pace in a world where more money was needed to remain competitive. All of the realignment of 2021 and 2022 was driven by the need of more revenue and the Alston case and the transfer portal sealed that motivation in place.

The ACC was extremely cohesive, or they would not have lasted this long. Maryland was desperate and acted early. Did Virginia or Georgia Tech leave with them? No. These schools which are considering moves now would not be considering them if the fear of losing status because of a deficit in revenue was not their primary motivation, and they wouldn't be considering the SEC or Big Ten without looking at projections given them by those conferences detailing their future revenue streams.

What their financial officers and attorneys comb through is what their projections are for total overhead and total revenue. Athletic fit, and cultural fit are way down the line from revenue, donor desires, fan desires (which are the customer base for their products) and network exposure.

My stances are based on those factors because presidents now only ceremonially have the final say. Money and exposure are the first two considerations. But you should know this. Why else would FSU be a priority for the AAU loving Big Ten and not Stanford? Money, as derived from market penetration! Why else would FSU consider the Big Ten? Money, sold as the expectation that such a relationship would get them into AAU. And that sir we both know is not how AAU membership works! They may get there one day as they are doing the necessary work themselves to improve their standing in the areas which AAU prioritizes, but it's the money and exposure they most require right now, and should the SEC have another priority they would be quite willing to entertain the Big Ten advances for money and exposure. Money helps your chances to win, and exposure appeals to lots of high school seniors especially at a time the baby bust is being felt most palpably.

if you don't like the narrative, it's because you can't stand the truth!

As long as the two primary players in college sports are FOX and ESPN/Disney the latter will likely continue to amass what it wants. FOX has the money to be a tough competitor. Disney is willing to commit it. Until that changes, my world view of the outcome in college sports will not change. The SEC and Big Ten are proxies in the corporate struggle for control of the sport. And between the two of them the SEC continues to out earn the Big Ten when all lines in the accounts receivable are counted, instead of just media money, and that one ledger line will close next Spring.

ESPN extended the ACC's contract until 2036. It signed the SEC until 2034. It set the ACC's self-reducing buyout for 2031. And all of it gives them the final say in movement which would happen between the two conferences. Technically it meets the letter of the law. Sure, an ACC school could choose to leave for the Big Ten. But it would happen while they were still under contract to ESPN and therefore ESPN would have the ability to pay the SEC to offer them more and it places them in a position to cover exit fees as needed to ensure they keep the product they want. That the SEC requires much less travel and is the better cultural fit for their consumers doesn't hurt the potential outcome either. Neither does the SEC policy of full financial inclusion on Day 1 of membership, or its exposure to the broader market.

If you can't grasp or won't accept the reality of that situation it's not the fault of this board or its posters.

I don't entirely agree with you, but one important thing related to your point you didn't mention-Fox is the biggest shareholder of Disney. So they aren't entirely rivals.

(10-28-2025 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

Initially, what you said was the case, it was driven by presidents. In 1990 and again in 1992 and in the latter 90's it was absolutely driven by presidents. Even in 2010-11 the case could be made for that in some instances. Since that time, it has been driven by corporate interests. If in 2022 it had been driven by presidents would Cal and Stanford be in the ACC? Or would they have been in the Big Ten. There are things that the SEC wants, but that wouldn't be as relevant if ESPN didn't want them as well. I started pointing out how corporations were taking over the pastime of college sports, particularly football way back in the early 2000's. I just didn't do it on this site until my first post here. Since then, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Money became the primary motivator for movement and presidents became more and more susceptible to its draw. The financial crisis in 2006-8 cemented it. All that can be said in support of your statement is that presidents give the approval along with the support of their trustees. But money is the motivator and in any business transaction the one that controls it is the one who pays.

You don't like the narrative because you fear it to be the reality and because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want. But you are a businessman, and you know very well what is driving most of the realignment. Ease of travel and culture are minor factors. Opportunity for larger payouts the primary lure. Why did Maryland join the Big Ten in 2011-12? They needed money. Why did Missouri do the same with the SEC? They needed to keep up with Nebraska who left the Big 12 for the fit of the Big Ten but also because they needed to keep pace in a world where more money was needed to remain competitive. All of the realignment of 2021 and 2022 was driven by the need of more revenue and the Alston case and the transfer portal sealed that motivation in place.

The ACC was extremely cohesive, or they would not have lasted this long. Maryland was desperate and acted early. Did Virginia or Georgia Tech leave with them? No. These schools which are considering moves now would not be considering them if the fear of losing status because of a deficit in revenue was not their primary motivation, and they wouldn't be considering the SEC or Big Ten without looking at projections given them by those conferences detailing their future revenue streams.

What their financial officers and attorneys comb through is what their projections are for total overhead and total revenue. Athletic fit, and cultural fit are way down the line from revenue, donor desires, fan desires (which are the customer base for their products) and network exposure.

My stances are based on those factors because presidents now only ceremonially have the final say. Money and exposure are the first two considerations. But you should know this. Why else would FSU be a priority for the AAU loving Big Ten and not Stanford? Money, as derived from market penetration! Why else would FSU consider the Big Ten? Money, sold as the expectation that such a relationship would get them into AAU. And that sir we both know is not how AAU membership works! They may get there one day as they are doing the necessary work themselves to improve their standing in the areas which AAU prioritizes, but it's the money and exposure they most require right now, and should the SEC have another priority they would be quite willing to entertain the Big Ten advances for money and exposure. Money helps your chances to win, and exposure appeals to lots of high school seniors especially at a time the baby bust is being felt most palpably.

if you don't like the narrative, it's because you can't stand the truth!

As long as the two primary players in college sports are FOX and ESPN/Disney the latter will likely continue to amass what it wants. FOX has the money to be a tough competitor. Disney is willing to commit it. Until that changes, my world view of the outcome in college sports will not change. The SEC and Big Ten are proxies in the corporate struggle for control of the sport. And between the two of them the SEC continues to out earn the Big Ten when all lines in the accounts receivable are counted, instead of just media money, and that one ledger line will close next Spring.

ESPN extended the ACC's contract until 2036. It signed the SEC until 2034. It set the ACC's self-reducing buyout for 2031. And all of it gives them the final say in movement which would happen between the two conferences. Technically it meets the letter of the law. Sure, an ACC school could choose to leave for the Big Ten. But it would happen while they were still under contract to ESPN and therefore ESPN would have the ability to pay the SEC to offer them more and it places them in a position to cover exit fees as needed to ensure they keep the product they want. That the SEC requires much less travel and is the better cultural fit for their consumers doesn't hurt the potential outcome either. Neither does the SEC policy of full financial inclusion on Day 1 of membership, or its exposure to the broader market.

If you can't grasp or won't accept the reality of that situation it's not the fault of this board or its posters.

I don't entirely agree with you, but one important thing related to your point you didn't mention-Fox is the biggest shareholder of Disney. So they aren't entirely rivals.

That's true that they are. In many ways they have formed a hegemony in the takeover of the sport. Disney, however, has other business ties and interests which FOX may also see as an asset in monetizing college football in particular. Gambling is one of those interests, and not one I care for. Having better platforms than simply streaming initially aided their efforts. And though I could not prove it, I would be very surprised if FOX and Disney via ESPN didn't wind up holding a top tier independent league where one network controlled one of the two top conferences and the other the other of the top two and both were equally invested in a third conference. At this point it certainly seems logical for such an outcome to emerge. And the conferences which are faced with demographic challenges and the economic uncertainty following court cases and obviously impacted by larger global trends, are happy to play along for the very thing they need, more money and exposure. In life all things may be controlled by their vulnerabilities. For universities that's enrollment which is directly linked to exposure, and revenue enough to keep pace with costs. And the costs went up with Alston. Dangle money and promise them more national exposure and you control their decisions. The presidential / trustee final say becomes easily manipulated. Is it a healthy situation for college sports? Hell no! But it is the reality.

(10-28-2025 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

Initially, what you said was the case, it was driven by presidents. In 1990 and again in 1992 and in the latter 90's it was absolutely driven by presidents. Even in 2010-11 the case could be made for that in some instances. Since that time, it has been driven by corporate interests. If in 2022 it had been driven by presidents would Cal and Stanford be in the ACC? Or would they have been in the Big Ten. There are things that the SEC wants, but that wouldn't be as relevant if ESPN didn't want them as well. I started pointing out how corporations were taking over the pastime of college sports, particularly football way back in the early 2000's. I just didn't do it on this site until my first post here. Since then, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Money became the primary motivator for movement and presidents became more and more susceptible to its draw. The financial crisis in 2006-8 cemented it. All that can be said in support of your statement is that presidents give the approval along with the support of their trustees. But money is the motivator and in any business transaction the one that controls it is the one who pays.

You don't like the narrative because you fear it to be the reality and because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want. But you are a businessman, and you know very well what is driving most of the realignment. Ease of travel and culture are minor factors. Opportunity for larger payouts the primary lure. Why did Maryland join the Big Ten in 2011-12? They needed money. Why did Missouri do the same with the SEC? They needed to keep up with Nebraska who left the Big 12 for the fit of the Big Ten but also because they needed to keep pace in a world where more money was needed to remain competitive. All of the realignment of 2021 and 2022 was driven by the need of more revenue and the Alston case and the transfer portal sealed that motivation in place.

The ACC was extremely cohesive, or they would not have lasted this long. Maryland was desperate and acted early. Did Virginia or Georgia Tech leave with them? No. These schools which are considering moves now would not be considering them if the fear of losing status because of a deficit in revenue was not their primary motivation, and they wouldn't be considering the SEC or Big Ten without looking at projections given them by those conferences detailing their future revenue streams.

What their financial officers and attorneys comb through is what their projections are for total overhead and total revenue. Athletic fit, and cultural fit are way down the line from revenue, donor desires, fan desires (which are the customer base for their products) and network exposure.

My stances are based on those factors because presidents now only ceremonially have the final say. Money and exposure are the first two considerations. But you should know this. Why else would FSU be a priority for the AAU loving Big Ten and not Stanford? Money, as derived from market penetration! Why else would FSU consider the Big Ten? Money, sold as the expectation that such a relationship would get them into AAU. And that sir we both know is not how AAU membership works! They may get there one day as they are doing the necessary work themselves to improve their standing in the areas which AAU prioritizes, but it's the money and exposure they most require right now, and should the SEC have another priority they would be quite willing to entertain the Big Ten advances for money and exposure. Money helps your chances to win, and exposure appeals to lots of high school seniors especially at a time the baby bust is being felt most palpably.

if you don't like the narrative, it's because you can't stand the truth!

As long as the two primary players in college sports are FOX and ESPN/Disney the latter will likely continue to amass what it wants. FOX has the money to be a tough competitor. Disney is willing to commit it. Until that changes, my world view of the outcome in college sports will not change. The SEC and Big Ten are proxies in the corporate struggle for control of the sport. And between the two of them the SEC continues to out earn the Big Ten when all lines in the accounts receivable are counted, instead of just media money, and that one ledger line will close next Spring.

ESPN extended the ACC's contract until 2036. It signed the SEC until 2034. It set the ACC's self-reducing buyout for 2031. And all of it gives them the final say in movement which would happen between the two conferences. Technically it meets the letter of the law. Sure, an ACC school could choose to leave for the Big Ten. But it would happen while they were still under contract to ESPN and therefore ESPN would have the ability to pay the SEC to offer them more and it places them in a position to cover exit fees as needed to ensure they keep the product they want. That the SEC requires much less travel and is the better cultural fit for their consumers doesn't hurt the potential outcome either. Neither does the SEC policy of full financial inclusion on Day 1 of membership, or its exposure to the broader market.

If you can't grasp or won't accept the reality of that situation it's not the fault of this board or its posters.

I don't entirely agree with you, but one important thing related to your point you didn't mention-Fox is the biggest shareholder of Disney. So they aren't entirely rivals.

That's true that they are. In many ways they have formed a hegemony in the takeover of the sport. Disney, however, has other business ties and interests which FOX may also see as an asset in monetizing college football in particular. Gambling is one of those interests, and not one I care for. Having better platforms than simply streaming initially aided their efforts. And though I could not prove it, I would be very surprised if FOX and Disney via ESPN didn't wind up holding a top tier independent league where one network controlled one of the two top conferences and the other the other of the top two and both were equally invested in a third conference. At this point it certainly seems logical for such an outcome to emerge. And the conferences which are faced with demographic challenges and the economic uncertainty following court cases and obviously impacted by larger global trends, are happy to play along for the very thing they need, more money and exposure. In life all things may be controlled by their vulnerabilities. For universities that's enrollment which is directly linked to exposure, and revenue enough to keep pace with costs. And the costs went up with Alston. Dangle money and promise them more national exposure and you control their decisions. The presidential / trustee final say becomes easily manipulated. Is it a healthy situation for college sports? Hell no! But it is the reality.

Even before Fox sold most of their assets to Disney for stock, they cooperated on the Big 12 and Pac 12 for years. They still share the Big 12.

(10-28-2025 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

Initially, what you said was the case, it was driven by presidents. In 1990 and again in 1992 and in the latter 90's it was absolutely driven by presidents. Even in 2010-11 the case could be made for that in some instances. Since that time, it has been driven by corporate interests. If in 2022 it had been driven by presidents would Cal and Stanford be in the ACC? Or would they have been in the Big Ten. There are things that the SEC wants, but that wouldn't be as relevant if ESPN didn't want them as well. I started pointing out how corporations were taking over the pastime of college sports, particularly football way back in the early 2000's. I just didn't do it on this site until my first post here. Since then, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Money became the primary motivator for movement and presidents became more and more susceptible to its draw. The financial crisis in 2006-8 cemented it. All that can be said in support of your statement is that presidents give the approval along with the support of their trustees. But money is the motivator and in any business transaction the one that controls it is the one who pays.

You don't like the narrative because you fear it to be the reality and because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want. But you are a businessman, and you know very well what is driving most of the realignment. Ease of travel and culture are minor factors. Opportunity for larger payouts the primary lure. Why did Maryland join the Big Ten in 2011-12? They needed money. Why did Missouri do the same with the SEC? They needed to keep up with Nebraska who left the Big 12 for the fit of the Big Ten but also because they needed to keep pace in a world where more money was needed to remain competitive. All of the realignment of 2021 and 2022 was driven by the need of more revenue and the Alston case and the transfer portal sealed that motivation in place.

The ACC was extremely cohesive, or they would not have lasted this long. Maryland was desperate and acted early. Did Virginia or Georgia Tech leave with them? No. These schools which are considering moves now would not be considering them if the fear of losing status because of a deficit in revenue was not their primary motivation, and they wouldn't be considering the SEC or Big Ten without looking at projections given them by those conferences detailing their future revenue streams.

What their financial officers and attorneys comb through is what their projections are for total overhead and total revenue. Athletic fit, and cultural fit are way down the line from revenue, donor desires, fan desires (which are the customer base for their products) and network exposure.

My stances are based on those factors because presidents now only ceremonially have the final say. Money and exposure are the first two considerations. But you should know this. Why else would FSU be a priority for the AAU loving Big Ten and not Stanford? Money, as derived from market penetration! Why else would FSU consider the Big Ten? Money, sold as the expectation that such a relationship would get them into AAU. And that sir we both know is not how AAU membership works! They may get there one day as they are doing the necessary work themselves to improve their standing in the areas which AAU prioritizes, but it's the money and exposure they most require right now, and should the SEC have another priority they would be quite willing to entertain the Big Ten advances for money and exposure. Money helps your chances to win, and exposure appeals to lots of high school seniors especially at a time the baby bust is being felt most palpably.

if you don't like the narrative, it's because you can't stand the truth!

As long as the two primary players in college sports are FOX and ESPN/Disney the latter will likely continue to amass what it wants. FOX has the money to be a tough competitor. Disney is willing to commit it. Until that changes, my world view of the outcome in college sports will not change. The SEC and Big Ten are proxies in the corporate struggle for control of the sport. And between the two of them the SEC continues to out earn the Big Ten when all lines in the accounts receivable are counted, instead of just media money, and that one ledger line will close next Spring.

ESPN extended the ACC's contract until 2036. It signed the SEC until 2034. It set the ACC's self-reducing buyout for 2031. And all of it gives them the final say in movement which would happen between the two conferences. Technically it meets the letter of the law. Sure, an ACC school could choose to leave for the Big Ten. But it would happen while they were still under contract to ESPN and therefore ESPN would have the ability to pay the SEC to offer them more and it places them in a position to cover exit fees as needed to ensure they keep the product they want. That the SEC requires much less travel and is the better cultural fit for their consumers doesn't hurt the potential outcome either. Neither does the SEC policy of full financial inclusion on Day 1 of membership, or its exposure to the broader market.

If you can't grasp or won't accept the reality of that situation it's not the fault of this board or its posters.

I don't entirely agree with you, but one important thing related to your point you didn't mention-Fox is the biggest shareholder of Disney. So they aren't entirely rivals.

I thought that it was Rupert and the Murdoch family that acquired a large share of Disney in a stock swap, and not FOX.

(10-27-2025 10:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 03:01 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 02:42 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

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

(10-27-2025 01:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  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).

Miami and Duke gets the Big10 to 20.

Gets into 2 new states/markets. Large alumni base in the region. etc. Duke is a top academic school, and a blue blood basketball program with a nation-wide brand.

Since they already have Maryland for the DC area, there's no "need" to add Virginia, and if adding Duke, no "need" for North Carolina. Let the SEC add "the south's oldest rivalry"; with the SEC's new "schedule a P4 school", I have no doubt that the rival games will get scheduled.

I'll say it again, if FSU is off the table, Miami and Arizona State (or an outside chance Colorado) make the most sense if the B1G expands to 20. Duke is not going to help their ratings, which is obviously what they need to focus on.

1) Arizona State does fit culturally as a B1G school these days, and is home to a ton of alumni. ASU adds synergy with the West Coast schools.

2) Colorado fits culturally with the new look B1G and adds synergy with Nebraska, which could use some.

Uh huh.

You just want the ACC to not be in a weaker position than the Big 12. It makes no sense to keep expanding west. Georgia Tech and Miami would be exceptional additions. And you can replace GT with UVA/UNC.

I really don't care. Georgia Tech and Miami are having good seasons, but neither are built to compete for conference championships—much less natties—every season. I mean do I need to send you to Wikipedia to understand they've not won the conference since 2009 and never respectively?

Do you know there is a huge B1G alumni presence in Arizona and Colorado? Do you know those schools add synergy to the current B1G? Miami is Bandwagon U, but does GaTech add synergy?

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Why would they care?

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 03:01 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 02:42 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

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

Miami and Duke gets the Big10 to 20.

Gets into 2 new states/markets. Large alumni base in the region. etc. Duke is a top academic school, and a blue blood basketball program with a nation-wide brand.

Since they already have Maryland for the DC area, there's no "need" to add Virginia, and if adding Duke, no "need" for North Carolina. Let the SEC add "the south's oldest rivalry"; with the SEC's new "schedule a P4 school", I have no doubt that the rival games will get scheduled.

I'll say it again, if FSU is off the table, Miami and Arizona State (or an outside chance Colorado) make the most sense if the B1G expands to 20. Duke is not going to help their ratings, which is obviously what they need to focus on.

1) Arizona State does fit culturally as a B1G school these days, and is home to a ton of alumni. ASU adds synergy with the West Coast schools.

2) Colorado fits culturally with the new look B1G and adds synergy with Nebraska, which could use some.

Uh huh.

You just want the ACC to not be in a weaker position than the Big 12. It makes no sense to keep expanding west. Georgia Tech and Miami would be exceptional additions. And you can replace GT with UVA/UNC.

I really don't care. Georgia Tech and Miami are having good seasons, but neither are built to compete for conference championships—much less natties—every season. I mean do I need to send you to Wikipedia to understand they've not won the conference since 2009 and never respectively?

Do you know there is a huge B1G alumni presence in Arizona and Colorado? Do you know those schools add synergy to the current B1G? Miami is Bandwagon U, but does GaTech add synergy?

If there is one Big Ten alum in Denver then there's two or three of them in Atlanta.


Note: This doesn't meant that I am endorsing TrojanCampaign's school picks, even if they are the best options east of California and west of Nebraska.

(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.

expansion say with CBB powers in new states provides carriage for the SECN, tournament units etc. They also serve the purposes of eating loses while doing the above.

A 9 game SEC schedule with UVA and Kentucky would be better than a 9 game SEC schedule catching A&M and UF

(10-28-2025 12:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

Initially, what you said was the case, it was driven by presidents. In 1990 and again in 1992 and in the latter 90's it was absolutely driven by presidents. Even in 2010-11 the case could be made for that in some instances. Since that time, it has been driven by corporate interests. If in 2022 it had been driven by presidents would Cal and Stanford be in the ACC? Or would they have been in the Big Ten. There are things that the SEC wants, but that wouldn't be as relevant if ESPN didn't want them as well. I started pointing out how corporations were taking over the pastime of college sports, particularly football way back in the early 2000's. I just didn't do it on this site until my first post here. Since then, I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Money became the primary motivator for movement and presidents became more and more susceptible to its draw. The financial crisis in 2006-8 cemented it. All that can be said in support of your statement is that presidents give the approval along with the support of their trustees. But money is the motivator and in any business transaction the one that controls it is the one who pays.

You don't like the narrative because you fear it to be the reality and because it doesn't fit the narrative that you want. But you are a businessman, and you know very well what is driving most of the realignment. Ease of travel and culture are minor factors. Opportunity for larger payouts the primary lure. Why did Maryland join the Big Ten in 2011-12? They needed money. Why did Missouri do the same with the SEC? They needed to keep up with Nebraska who left the Big 12 for the fit of the Big Ten but also because they needed to keep pace in a world where more money was needed to remain competitive. All of the realignment of 2021 and 2022 was driven by the need of more revenue and the Alston case and the transfer portal sealed that motivation in place.

The ACC was extremely cohesive, or they would not have lasted this long. Maryland was desperate and acted early. Did Virginia or Georgia Tech leave with them? No. These schools which are considering moves now would not be considering them if the fear of losing status because of a deficit in revenue was not their primary motivation, and they wouldn't be considering the SEC or Big Ten without looking at projections given them by those conferences detailing their future revenue streams.

What their financial officers and attorneys comb through is what their projections are for total overhead and total revenue. Athletic fit, and cultural fit are way down the line from revenue, donor desires, fan desires (which are the customer base for their products) and network exposure.

My stances are based on those factors because presidents now only ceremonially have the final say. Money and exposure are the first two considerations. But you should know this. Why else would FSU be a priority for the AAU loving Big Ten and not Stanford? Money, as derived from market penetration! Why else would FSU consider the Big Ten? Money, sold as the expectation that such a relationship would get them into AAU. And that sir we both know is not how AAU membership works! They may get there one day as they are doing the necessary work themselves to improve their standing in the areas which AAU prioritizes, but it's the money and exposure they most require right now, and should the SEC have another priority they would be quite willing to entertain the Big Ten advances for money and exposure. Money helps your chances to win, and exposure appeals to lots of high school seniors especially at a time the baby bust is being felt most palpably.

if you don't like the narrative, it's because you can't stand the truth!

As long as the two primary players in college sports are FOX and ESPN/Disney the latter will likely continue to amass what it wants. FOX has the money to be a tough competitor. Disney is willing to commit it. Until that changes, my world view of the outcome in college sports will not change. The SEC and Big Ten are proxies in the corporate struggle for control of the sport. And between the two of them the SEC continues to out earn the Big Ten when all lines in the accounts receivable are counted, instead of just media money, and that one ledger line will close next Spring.

ESPN extended the ACC's contract until 2036. It signed the SEC until 2034. It set the ACC's self-reducing buyout for 2031. And all of it gives them the final say in movement which would happen between the two conferences. Technically it meets the letter of the law. Sure, an ACC school could choose to leave for the Big Ten. But it would happen while they were still under contract to ESPN and therefore ESPN would have the ability to pay the SEC to offer them more and it places them in a position to cover exit fees as needed to ensure they keep the product they want. That the SEC requires much less travel and is the better cultural fit for their consumers doesn't hurt the potential outcome either. Neither does the SEC policy of full financial inclusion on Day 1 of membership, or its exposure to the broader market.

If you can't grasp or won't accept the reality of that situation it's not the fault of this board or its posters.

I don't entirely agree with you, but one important thing related to your point you didn't mention-Fox is the biggest shareholder of Disney. So they aren't entirely rivals.

I thought that it was Rupert and the Murdoch family that acquired a large share of Disney in a stock swap, and not FOX.

And Rupert controls Fox. Same point.

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

I do not mean to be insulting or antagonist with what I am about to say because you obviously love the B1G, but I seriously doubt there is ANY school that would choose the B1G over the SEC at this point. Why? Because the SEC is killing it in the viewership numbers, and no other conference is close.

The SEC is putting out nailbiter thrillers each and every week with SEC conference game margin of victories comparable to NFL games. In contrast, the B1G is offering blowouts by their 3 powers, and most of the rest B1G conference have less than stellar ratings. With the SEC now having 12 traditional powers, plus every one of the other 12 schools being competitive in most of their conference games each week, including 3 of the non-traditional powers vying for playoff spots, the SEC is rolling Biggly.

There was a fear that the SEC having too many alpha dogs would ruin the pack, but now it appears it has just made the conference stronger and has produced an even better product. If this continues, the SEC is going to get paid like no conference has ever been paid before.

Furthermore, with the non-traditional power schools now holding their own against the traditional powers, the SEC now has 16 strong Bullies that are going to be even more marketable. Even our 4 schools with the most losses, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State and South Carolina usually BARELY lose, and often in dramatic fashion. In short, every SEC conference football game is becoming must see TV. To be honest, the B1G is starting to pale in comparison, and I think that is a vibe being felt across the country.

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 03:01 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 02:42 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

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

Miami and Duke gets the Big10 to 20.

Gets into 2 new states/markets. Large alumni base in the region. etc. Duke is a top academic school, and a blue blood basketball program with a nation-wide brand.

Since they already have Maryland for the DC area, there's no "need" to add Virginia, and if adding Duke, no "need" for North Carolina. Let the SEC add "the south's oldest rivalry"; with the SEC's new "schedule a P4 school", I have no doubt that the rival games will get scheduled.

I'll say it again, if FSU is off the table, Miami and Arizona State (or an outside chance Colorado) make the most sense if the B1G expands to 20. Duke is not going to help their ratings, which is obviously what they need to focus on.

1) Arizona State does fit culturally as a B1G school these days, and is home to a ton of alumni. ASU adds synergy with the West Coast schools.

2) Colorado fits culturally with the new look B1G and adds synergy with Nebraska, which could use some.

Uh huh.

You just want the ACC to not be in a weaker position than the Big 12. It makes no sense to keep expanding west. Georgia Tech and Miami would be exceptional additions. And you can replace GT with UVA/UNC.

I really don't care. Georgia Tech and Miami are having good seasons, but neither are built to compete for conference championships—much less natties—every season. I mean do I need to send you to Wikipedia to understand they've not won the conference since 2009 and never respectively?

Do you know there is a huge B1G alumni presence in Arizona and Colorado? Do you know those schools add synergy to the current B1G? Miami is Bandwagon U, but does GaTech add synergy?

This season is irrelevant.

Arizona and Colorado are growing states but they will never rival Florida. Furthermore, Atlanta alone nearly rivals the state population of Arizona. And has a significantly higher African American population.

Colorado is never going to be a successful program. And ASU is another mediocre program in a state that doesn't produce many high level recruits. It would be better to not expand than adding those two.

(10-28-2025 09:42 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:36 AM)stechs02 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:20 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 08:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  The SEC adds NC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson. The Big adds Miami and Duke or GT.

Why would ESPN and the SEC let Miami and GT go to the B1G?

Do ESPN and the SEC even have a say if certain universities ultimately prefer the Big Ten? Conference realignment decisions still rest with university presidents and governing boards, not networks or conferences. The closer we get to 2030 without definitive movement, the more evident it becomes that institutional alignment and long-term academic and financial strategy will drive outcomes.

Some schools may simply view the Big Ten as a better fit than the SEC. That may sound like heresy on this board, which often treats SEC expansion as inevitable and universally desired, yet it remains a valid and realistic possibility grounded in governance dynamics and institutional preference.

I stepped away from this board because the SEC-centric narrative and accompanying groupthink have become increasingly difficult to engage with in a constructive way. This will again be my last post for some time.

I do not mean to be insulting or antagonist with what I am about to say because you obviously love the B1G, but I seriously doubt there is ANY school that would choose the B1G over the SEC at this point. Why? Because the SEC is killing it in the viewership numbers, and no other conference is close.

The SEC is putting out nailbiter thrillers each and every week with SEC conference game margin of victories comparable to NFL games. In contrast, the B1G is offering blowouts by their 3 powers, and most of the rest B1G conference have less than stellar ratings. With the SEC now having 12 traditional powers, plus every one of the other 12 schools being competitive in most of their conference games each week, including 3 of the non-traditional powers vying for playoff spots, the SEC is rolling Biggly.

There was a fear that the SEC having too many alpha dogs would ruin the pack, but now it appears it has just made the conference stronger and has produced an even better product. If this continues, the SEC is going to get paid like no conference has ever been paid before.

Furthermore, with the non-traditional power schools now holding their own against the traditional powers, the SEC now has 16 strong Bullies that are going to be even more marketable. Even our 4 schools with the most losses, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State and South Carolina usually BARELY lose, and often in dramatic fashion. In short, every SEC conference football game is becoming must see TV. To be honest, the B1G is starting to pale in comparison, and I think that is a vibe being felt across the country.

SEC also only has 16 mouths to feed. The B1G’s UC Pension fund deal would split revenue in 20 shares (18 schools plus the investor plus the league office). It also stands to reason that any non-ND B1G additions would enter with unequal distributions like Oregon and Washington, which would also make the SEC more attractive since that isn’t a what the SEC does..

(10-28-2025 03:39 PM)The Beaver Wrote:  If there is one Big Ten alum in Denver then there's two or three of them in Atlanta.

Sure, there is one of everyone in Atlanta. But GaTech isn't a bandwagon school, and for all intents and purposes is a private school. They have a giant graduate base who does not care about football. ATL football is the Dirty Birds and Dawgs.

ASU and Colorado would synergize the B1G's Western flank. Remember, last round of expansion SoCal, UCLA, UO, and UW were not involved. Those four plus Nebraska would be "yes" vote for CU. Would they for UVa or GaTech? Would a compromise be necessary? People need to take that into account moving forward. The B1G is now stretched geographically with disparate desires.

The absolute most I see is both conferences going to 20—and only if it makes financial sense. The SEC bringing in Carolina, Clemson, FSU, and either UVa or NC State. The B1G whiffing on ND and bringing in Miami and either ASU or Colorado.

My mind has not changed about this in like three years, so I'm not sure why I still post here lol

(10-28-2025 09:58 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 03:01 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 02:42 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Miami and Duke gets the Big10 to 20.

Gets into 2 new states/markets. Large alumni base in the region. etc. Duke is a top academic school, and a blue blood basketball program with a nation-wide brand.

Since they already have Maryland for the DC area, there's no "need" to add Virginia, and if adding Duke, no "need" for North Carolina. Let the SEC add "the south's oldest rivalry"; with the SEC's new "schedule a P4 school", I have no doubt that the rival games will get scheduled.

I'll say it again, if FSU is off the table, Miami and Arizona State (or an outside chance Colorado) make the most sense if the B1G expands to 20. Duke is not going to help their ratings, which is obviously what they need to focus on.

1) Arizona State does fit culturally as a B1G school these days, and is home to a ton of alumni. ASU adds synergy with the West Coast schools.

2) Colorado fits culturally with the new look B1G and adds synergy with Nebraska, which could use some.

Uh huh.

You just want the ACC to not be in a weaker position than the Big 12. It makes no sense to keep expanding west. Georgia Tech and Miami would be exceptional additions. And you can replace GT with UVA/UNC.

I really don't care. Georgia Tech and Miami are having good seasons, but neither are built to compete for conference championships—much less natties—every season. I mean do I need to send you to Wikipedia to understand they've not won the conference since 2009 and never respectively?

Do you know there is a huge B1G alumni presence in Arizona and Colorado? Do you know those schools add synergy to the current B1G? Miami is Bandwagon U, but does GaTech add synergy?

This season is irrelevant.

Arizona and Colorado are growing states but they will never rival Florida. Furthermore, Atlanta alone nearly rivals the state population of Arizona. And has a significantly higher African American population.

Colorado is never going to be a successful program. And ASU is another mediocre program in a state that doesn't produce many high level recruits. It would be better to not expand than adding those two.

So why not add Rice if the B1G wants a big city?

That model is dying a fast death. GaTech will get the BTN full rates in Atlanta for a few years and then bye-bye cable subs. It's a very short term strategy and not one the B1G should consider IMO.

As I said in another post, I doubt your Trojans and co. would favor GaTech over ASU or CU.


I just don't think a lot of people understand GaTech is not a bandwagon school of ATL. They are pretty much a private school with a smallish stadium, and UGa dominates ATL and the state.

(10-29-2025 06:56 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  So why not add Rice if the B1G wants a big city?

That model is dying a fast death. GaTech will get the BTN full rates in Atlanta for a few years and then bye-bye cable subs. It's a very short term strategy and not one the B1G should consider IMO.

As I said in another post, I doubt your Trojans and co. would favor GaTech over ASU or CU.


I just don't think a lot of people understand GaTech is not a bandwagon school of ATL. They are pretty much a private school with a smallish stadium, and UGa dominates ATL and the state.

I don't see why having a few more Vandy type schools is a bad thing though... it's not just recency bias. You need mega donors, and these guys typically come from these elite schools. So, while GaTech certainly would not be included in the first 20, the make plenty of sense as a 21/22.

Miami/KU and GaTech/Duke as a combo is pretty interchangeable. UVa appears to be the clear #4 at the moment. For the SEC, I am taking GaTech Duke as 21/22. They are must haves past 20, I really believe that. KU/Miami is sort of 1B, but I can let them slip and move on to VaTech/NCSU if my hands were tied.

The ACC as currently constituted is a complete redundancy. Even if the SEC only lands two, the only marquee games will involve FSU/Miami/Clemson/ND, most of whom would be B1G bound at some point anyways. UVa and GaTech cannot sustain this type of recent success, but I still think they're worth having.

(10-29-2025 06:56 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 09:58 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 10:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 03:01 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  I'll say it again, if FSU is off the table, Miami and Arizona State (or an outside chance Colorado) make the most sense if the B1G expands to 20. Duke is not going to help their ratings, which is obviously what they need to focus on.

1) Arizona State does fit culturally as a B1G school these days, and is home to a ton of alumni. ASU adds synergy with the West Coast schools.

2) Colorado fits culturally with the new look B1G and adds synergy with Nebraska, which could use some.

Uh huh.

You just want the ACC to not be in a weaker position than the Big 12. It makes no sense to keep expanding west. Georgia Tech and Miami would be exceptional additions. And you can replace GT with UVA/UNC.

I really don't care. Georgia Tech and Miami are having good seasons, but neither are built to compete for conference championships—much less natties—every season. I mean do I need to send you to Wikipedia to understand they've not won the conference since 2009 and never respectively?

Do you know there is a huge B1G alumni presence in Arizona and Colorado? Do you know those schools add synergy to the current B1G? Miami is Bandwagon U, but does GaTech add synergy?

This season is irrelevant.

Arizona and Colorado are growing states but they will never rival Florida. Furthermore, Atlanta alone nearly rivals the state population of Arizona. And has a significantly higher African American population.

Colorado is never going to be a successful program. And ASU is another mediocre program in a state that doesn't produce many high level recruits. It would be better to not expand than adding those two.

So why not add Rice if the B1G wants a big city?

That model is dying a fast death. GaTech will get the BTN full rates in Atlanta for a few years and then bye-bye cable subs. It's a very short term strategy and not one the B1G should consider IMO.

As I said in another post, I doubt your Trojans and co. would favor GaTech over ASU or CU.


I just don't think a lot of people understand GaTech is not a bandwagon school of ATL. They are pretty much a private school with a smallish stadium, and UGa dominates ATL and the state.

I agree with you about UGA owning the State of Georgia and GT not having bandwagon fans and alumni support in great numbers, but consistent winning cures all woes. Vandy is a private school, playing in the SEC, who historically had even fewer fans show up to their football games than GT, but now that they are winning the bandwagon is filling up. If Vandy keeps winning for a few more years they will have enough support to last them for the foreseeable future with the increased exposure the top 1 to 3 conferences will be receiving. They already have the funds with the rich donor base and SEC membership.

My point is GT just might have the right coach to save them. Hotlanta may embrace the Jackets. Everyone loves a winner.