If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

(10-29-2025 07:35 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Not to mention GT also brings other benefits. GT can be 4-3 and people who aren't even fans will still show up to watch teams like Ohio State, USC, and Michigan play. And there are plenty of USC grads in the south. I live in Alabama and I would be overjoyed to watch my Trojans play in Atlanta or Miami.

Sounds way more fun than freezing my butt off in Ann Arbor in November.

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

But GT wouldn't be able to outspend every other school in the Big 10, which would be their new peers.
Having more is only an advantage if you have more than the teams that you compete against on a regular basis. Moving to a league where the other schools have bigger stadiums than you do, only puts you further behind.

(10-29-2025 11:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

But GT wouldn't be able to outspend every other school in the Big 10, which would be their new peers.
Having more is only and advantage if you have more than the teams that you compete against on a regular basis. Moving to a league where the other schools have bigger stadiums than you do, only puts you further behind.

And the travel would cost them a lot more.
And their fan base would hate it.
And they have no history with the Big Ten.
And they would be an afterthought for Big Ten opponents.
And the Big Ten diaspora in Atlanta would be in attendance at Grant field rooting for the opposition.
And with a 9 or 10 game Big Ten schedule their neighboring schools in the South would not be playing them.

Yep I'm sure that's what they want.

(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.

I don't see the Big Ten adding them, but both are better than half the Big Ten and solid #20-#30 type programs. They just aren't at the level of the premier Big Ten programs. Colorado has 5 top 5 finishes since 1961, tying them with UCLA for #20, just 1 behind UW and 2 behind LSU, Auburn, Clemson, Tennessee and Oregon. Arizona St. has 3, tying them for 25-26. Arizona St. is #22 all time in winning % among the P4, right between Virginia Tech and Michigan St. (CU is #34).

(10-29-2025 06:52 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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

I used to be more sold on the idea of GT to the big10. But then I looked at their long and continued history, and it makes it look like GT would fit better in the SEC.

Otherwise, GT would be a solid addition to the big10.

I agree that the big10 needs to shore up its western and plains flanks. But the big10 always seems to go for opportunities.

And right now, it's about ACC schools and possibly Kansas.

Basically, add the best choices now, because they might not be available later.

If we just look at academics prestige, Stanford, Duke, and Georgia Tech, are guilty opportunities. (Cal-Berkeley was a repeated "no", and it's unlikely that 2 Bay area schools get added.)

For markets, it's those 3 plus Miami.

Now Stanford has a bunch of question marks around it for various reasons.

so there's potentially room for another school.

while virginia is tempting, it's not a new market. and the conference still could use a school or 3 to shore up out west.

I think Colorado is added as a pair with Stanford - later. There is little to no risk that the SEC is adding either of them. If anything, Colorado could be part of ACC backfill.

ASU is a decent add for alumni reasons, and its history with the PAC schools. But you get a sense that both Arizona schools provide better value together than separately. And again, they can wait until later.

Kansas brings KC, a nation-wide basketball brand, a history with the plains schools (among others) and could very well be an SEC target this time around.

So, with all that in mind, the big10 could add 4 this time, and 4 next time -

Miami, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas

Stanford, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State

The SEC will add FSU and Clemson, and probably NC and VA.

But their next 4 are slimmer pickings.

Which is probably why we see SEC fans around here wanting the SEC to add big10 potential targets.

(10-29-2025 11:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

But GT wouldn't be able to outspend every other school in the Big 10, which would be their new peers.
Having more is only an advantage if you have more than the teams that you compete against on a regular basis. Moving to a league where the other schools have bigger stadiums than you do, only puts you further behind.

So what?

Like Rutgers GT doesn't need to be Michigan. They just need to compete with teams like Minnesota, NW, UCLA, and MSU to get bowl eligible most years. It's no different than an ACC team being able to outspend ECU.

SMU doesn't need to outspend Miami. They need to outspend TxST, UNT, UTSA, etc.

(10-29-2025 12:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 06:52 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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

I used to be more sold on the idea of GT to the big10. But then I looked at their long and continued history, and it makes it look like GT would fit better in the SEC.

Otherwise, GT would be a solid addition to the big10.

I agree that the big10 needs to shore up its western and plains flanks. But the big10 always seems to go for opportunities.

And right now, it's about ACC schools and possibly Kansas.

Basically, add the best choices now, because they might not be available later.

If we just look at academics prestige, Stanford, Duke, and Georgia Tech, are guilty opportunities. (Cal-Berkeley was a repeated "no", and it's unlikely that 2 Bay area schools get added.)

For markets, it's those 3 plus Miami.

Now Stanford has a bunch of question marks around it for various reasons.

so there's potentially room for another school.

while virginia is tempting, it's not a new market. and the conference still could use a school or 3 to shore up out west.

I think Colorado is added as a pair with Stanford - later. There is little to no risk that the SEC is adding either of them. If anything, Colorado could be part of ACC backfill.

ASU is a decent add for alumni reasons, and its history with the PAC schools. But you get a sense that both Arizona schools provide better value together than separately. And again, they can wait until later.

Kansas brings KC, a nation-wide basketball brand, a history with the plains schools (among others) and could very well be an SEC target this time around.

So, with all that in mind, the big10 could add 4 this time, and 4 next time -

Miami, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas

Stanford, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State

The SEC will add FSU and Clemson, and probably NC and VA.

But their next 4 are slimmer pickings.

Which is probably why we see SEC fans around here wanting the SEC to add big10 potential targets.

Wouldn't adding (those) eight give the Big Ten 26 teams? The big conference numbers I've heard as possible are 24 and 28.

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

Outspend on what?

Revenue sharing? There is a revenue sharing cap, so that's a no.

NIL? Absolutely unaffected by media payouts. So a no there as well.

Facilities? For their city campus. Okay, good luck there.

Coaches? Carolina's coach makes beaucoup bucks and our media payout is less than B1G schools.

So can you elaborate?

(10-29-2025 10:55 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Not to mention GT also brings other benefits. GT can be 4-3 and people who aren't even fans will still show up to watch teams like Ohio State, USC, and Michigan play. And there are plenty of USC grads in the south. I live in Alabama and I would be overjoyed to watch my Trojans play in Atlanta or Miami.

Sounds way more fun than freezing my butt off in Ann Arbor in November.

Finally the truth comes out!

(10-29-2025 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 11:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:44 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  If Vandy is successful post Pavia, I’ll be convinced. Same with GaTech and King.

And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

But GT wouldn't be able to outspend every other school in the Big 10, which would be their new peers.
Having more is only and advantage if you have more than the teams that you compete against on a regular basis. Moving to a league where the other schools have bigger stadiums than you do, only puts you further behind.

And the travel would cost them a lot more.
And their fan base would hate it.
And they have no history with the Big Ten.
And they would be an afterthought for Big Ten opponents.
And the Big Ten diaspora in Atlanta would be in attendance at Grant field rooting for the opposition.
And with a 9 or 10 game Big Ten schedule their neighboring schools in the South would not be playing them.

Yep I'm sure that's what they want.

JR,

Respectfully is too much SEC bias in this response. Right now Georgia tech has to make trips to San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, New York. Clemson is one of the only schools that is driving distance from Atlanta.

And let's say they don't get invited to the Big 10. What's the alternative for them? If Clemson, UNC, UVA, Duke, and Miami all go to the SEC/Big 10. I'm sure their fans are going to be thrilled to start making trips to Tulane, USF, Memphis, and Uconn.

And let's be clear. Georgia tech would not be the first choice. Obviously, North Carolina, Clemson, UVA, FSU, and Miami are. And I agree with some of your previous posts that the SEC likely will try to preemptively add some of these teams. But the SEC can't add the entire ACC. No matter what 2-4 teams that you guys add is not going to prevent us from being able to expand in the south. There's only so much tolerance for redundant markets a network is going to tolerate.

So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

(10-29-2025 12:50 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 12:27 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 06:52 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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

I used to be more sold on the idea of GT to the big10. But then I looked at their long and continued history, and it makes it look like GT would fit better in the SEC.

Otherwise, GT would be a solid addition to the big10.

I agree that the big10 needs to shore up its western and plains flanks. But the big10 always seems to go for opportunities.

And right now, it's about ACC schools and possibly Kansas.

Basically, add the best choices now, because they might not be available later.

If we just look at academics prestige, Stanford, Duke, and Georgia Tech, are guilty opportunities. (Cal-Berkeley was a repeated "no", and it's unlikely that 2 Bay area schools get added.)

For markets, it's those 3 plus Miami.

Now Stanford has a bunch of question marks around it for various reasons.

so there's potentially room for another school.

while virginia is tempting, it's not a new market. and the conference still could use a school or 3 to shore up out west.

I think Colorado is added as a pair with Stanford - later. There is little to no risk that the SEC is adding either of them. If anything, Colorado could be part of ACC backfill.

ASU is a decent add for alumni reasons, and its history with the PAC schools. But you get a sense that both Arizona schools provide better value together than separately. And again, they can wait until later.

Kansas brings KC, a nation-wide basketball brand, a history with the plains schools (among others) and could very well be an SEC target this time around.

So, with all that in mind, the big10 could add 4 this time, and 4 next time -

Miami, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas

Stanford, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State

The SEC will add FSU and Clemson, and probably NC and VA.

But their next 4 are slimmer pickings.

Which is probably why we see SEC fans around here wanting the SEC to add big10 potential targets.

Wouldn't adding (those) eight give the Big Ten 26 teams? The big conference numbers I've heard as possible are 24 and 28.

I didn't suggest adding all 8 now.

add 4 this time around (around 2029-ish) and the other 4 after the next set of conferences' media deals.

As for certain numbers, I don't think there is a specific target, merely that the big10 seems to prefer taking time to integrate a small number of schools, before adding more.

And 4 seems to be about right.

And we've heard 22 floated as a number before.

(10-29-2025 01:25 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 11:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:27 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  And if GT can keep their suddenly-successful staff from jumping to the P2, though they lost to Vandy last Dec.

If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

But GT wouldn't be able to outspend every other school in the Big 10, which would be their new peers.
Having more is only and advantage if you have more than the teams that you compete against on a regular basis. Moving to a league where the other schools have bigger stadiums than you do, only puts you further behind.

And the travel would cost them a lot more.
And their fan base would hate it.
And they have no history with the Big Ten.
And they would be an afterthought for Big Ten opponents.
And the Big Ten diaspora in Atlanta would be in attendance at Grant field rooting for the opposition.
And with a 9 or 10 game Big Ten schedule their neighboring schools in the South would not be playing them.

Yep I'm sure that's what they want.

JR,

Respectfully is too much SEC bias in this response. Right now Georgia tech has to make trips to San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, New York. Clemson is one of the only schools that is driving distance from Atlanta.

And let's say they don't get invited to the Big 10. What's the alternative for them? If Clemson, UNC, UVA, Duke, and Miami all go to the SEC/Big 10. I'm sure their fans are going to be thrilled to start making trips to Tulane, USF, Memphis, and Uconn.

And let's be clear. Georgia tech would not be the first choice. Obviously, North Carolina, Clemson, UVA, FSU, and Miami are. And I agree with some of your previous posts that the SEC likely will try to preemptively add some of these teams. But the SEC can't add the entire ACC. No matter what 2-4 teams that you guys add is not going to prevent us from being able to expand in the south. There's only so much tolerance for redundant markets a network is going to tolerate.

So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

SEC realignment has nothing to do with my remark. Ask the owner of this site, georgia_tech_swagger how he feels about my remarks. He'll tell you the same. Auburn was 90 minutes from Georgia Tech and that was why they were the South's oldest rival until Tech joined they joined the ACC in 1978 and the annual series stopped due to scheduling requirements in the ACC. The Big Ten with Miami and Clemson simply won't be palatable. Would they do it? If forced to because of no better existing offers, yes. Would their attendance suffer? Very likely.

There is no SEC bias at work here. Just the immutable laws of commerce. Georgia Tech's customer base is Georgia Tech's alumni and local fans. Most might be able to afford one air trip a year to an away destination they had always wanted to travel to, but shine comes off that arrangement within a few years.

The same would be true of any school in any conference which is regional to them.

Give it 5 years and tell me how much USC loves a Big Ten schedule. You are Army, I grew up Air Force. We bloom where we a temporarily planted and adapt well to new climbs. That's not the experience of your average American. Most Americans stay in the region in which they were born. College educated corporate employees would be more like military families were in the 50's and 60's. But those folks have tight schedules for work and family time is a premium.

There's no bias in my assessment except that provided me through personal experience and 20 years in corporate life, and 20 more in non profit. Between the poor and the middle and upper middle class nailing a demographic isn't hard to do. The super wealthy travel in private planes and get sky box seats anyway. It's 72 inch high definition for the rest, unless they are poor and have 42 inch screens.

(10-29-2025 01:25 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

Literally my whole point of this thread is to prove that this assumption is folly.

The SEC doesn't need anyone else.
Nobody else is cash positive.
*New point* The SEC doesn't care enough about basketball to sacrifice anything about football -- not money by dilution; not tradition; not rivarlies.

(10-29-2025 03:21 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 01:25 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

Literally my whole point of this thread is to prove that this assumption is folly.

The SEC doesn't need anyone else.
Nobody else is cash positive.
*New point* The SEC doesn't care enough about basketball to sacrifice anything about football -- not money by dilution; not tradition; not rivarlies.

New point! Slive and Sankey made basketball priority #1 for improving the overall athletic standing of the SEC. I don't know where you think you get your information but it is certainly not from the conference office.

North Carolina has been a subject of interest since 1990, contacted us about taking them and Duke in 2011 if Virginia and Georgia Tech headed with Maryland to the Big 10, and reached out again 3 days after the news about Texas and Oklahoma broke.

Second point: There are many ways to monetize the product. Big additions like Texas and Oklahoma with valuations at or over 1 billion each are indeed in short supply. Markets can add value. A strong brand which draws a large number of viewers added to our strong brands with large numbers of viewers can add value. As much as Notre Dame, the last unaffiliated whale? Nope. Enough to pay their way in? Yes.

Third point: ESPN will have a lot to say about who is worth it to them and as our business partner which helps us already to maximize value across the spectrum of sports, we'll listen.

And as I stated somewhere else today, the most preferable outcome for the SEC is a healthy ACC. That means we are free to simply do as we prefer. An unhealthy and unsteady ACC means we have to act proactively and the presidents have had plans in place to do exactly that since 1990. Happily we've already added A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma and took South Carolina as a reasonable replacement for Clemson who backed away from interest in 1991.

If Florida State was hellbent to leave the ACC the SEC and ESPN would take them to secure the top ad rates in the Florida market. If they needed a partner I wouldn't be surprised to see a major hoops brand like Kansas join them, unless the ACC was in danger of blowing apart. Then you would see the defensive additions to the SEC made to protect market domination in some key states and a push to add the states of North Carolina and Virginia preferably with the flagship AAU schools.

But this constant horse manure I see on blog sites and repeated in message forums about who can add value and who doesn't isn't anywhere remotely close to the considerations made at the conference office. Whether Kramer, Slive, or Sankey, or Schiller before them all who first strategized about SEC growth, there are layers of reasons the SEC could take schools that make no sense to fans.

(10-29-2025 03:21 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 01:25 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

Literally my whole point of this thread is to prove that this assumption is folly.

The SEC doesn't need anyone else.
Nobody else is cash positive.
*New point* The SEC doesn't care enough about basketball to sacrifice anything about football -- not money by dilution; not tradition; not rivarlies.

I don't disagree with you.

I've said multiple times SEC expansion doesn't actually make sense. The SEC isn't going to make more money by adding ACC teams because they already control the ACC markets we want.

But I don't see the SEC letting us cherry pick the ACC. Because if we land Clemson, FSU, Miami, FSU, UNC, and UVA for 24. ESPN will be losing a significant amount of properties.

(10-29-2025 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 01:25 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 11:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 10:57 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  If GT gets invited to the Big 10 they will be able to outspend every ACC team.

But GT wouldn't be able to outspend every other school in the Big 10, which would be their new peers.
Having more is only and advantage if you have more than the teams that you compete against on a regular basis. Moving to a league where the other schools have bigger stadiums than you do, only puts you further behind.

And the travel would cost them a lot more.
And their fan base would hate it.
And they have no history with the Big Ten.
And they would be an afterthought for Big Ten opponents.
And the Big Ten diaspora in Atlanta would be in attendance at Grant field rooting for the opposition.
And with a 9 or 10 game Big Ten schedule their neighboring schools in the South would not be playing them.

Yep I'm sure that's what they want.

JR,

Respectfully is too much SEC bias in this response. Right now Georgia tech has to make trips to San Francisco, Dallas, Boston, New York. Clemson is one of the only schools that is driving distance from Atlanta.

And let's say they don't get invited to the Big 10. What's the alternative for them? If Clemson, UNC, UVA, Duke, and Miami all go to the SEC/Big 10. I'm sure their fans are going to be thrilled to start making trips to Tulane, USF, Memphis, and Uconn.

And let's be clear. Georgia tech would not be the first choice. Obviously, North Carolina, Clemson, UVA, FSU, and Miami are. And I agree with some of your previous posts that the SEC likely will try to preemptively add some of these teams. But the SEC can't add the entire ACC. No matter what 2-4 teams that you guys add is not going to prevent us from being able to expand in the south. There's only so much tolerance for redundant markets a network is going to tolerate.

So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

SEC realignment has nothing to do with my remark. Ask the owner of this site, georgia_tech_swagger how he feels about my remarks. He'll tell you the same. Auburn was 90 minutes from Georgia Tech and that was why they were the South's oldest rival until Tech joined they joined the ACC in 1978 and the annual series stopped due to scheduling requirements in the ACC. The Big Ten with Miami and Clemson simply won't be palatable. Would they do it? If forced to because of no better existing offers, yes. Would their attendance suffer? Very likely.

There is no SEC bias at work here. Just the immutable laws of commerce. Georgia Tech's customer base is Georgia Tech's alumni and local fans. Most might be able to afford one air trip a year to an away destination they had always wanted to travel to, but shine comes off that arrangement within a few years.

The same would be true of any school in any conference which is regional to them.

Give it 5 years and tell me how much USC loves a Big Ten schedule. You are Army, I grew up Air Force. We bloom where we a temporarily planted and adapt well to new climbs. That's not the experience of your average American. Most Americans stay in the region in which they were born. College educated corporate employees would be more like military families were in the 50's and 60's. But those folks have tight schedules for work and family time is a premium.

There's no bias in my assessment except that provided me through personal experience and 20 years in corporate life, and 20 more in non profit. Between the poor and the middle and upper middle class nailing a demographic isn't hard to do. The super wealthy travel in private planes and get sky box seats anyway. It's 72 inch high definition for the rest, unless they are poor and have 42 inch screens.

What fans want isn't going to align with the reality that $$$$ is higher in the Big 10. I HATE the Big 10 and I'm honest about what this partnership is. We are in this conference to get paid.

It makes sense for GT and their fans to prefer the SEC. But if the SEC invitation isn't coming you can't say no to the revenue.

(10-29-2025 04:09 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 03:21 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 01:25 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  So once again, I'm assuming UNC, UVA, FSU, and Duke go to the SEC. Those are the best brands available. And it would solidify the SEC as the top football and basketball conference. But that still leaves Miami, Clemson, and GT on the board.

Literally my whole point of this thread is to prove that this assumption is folly.

The SEC doesn't need anyone else.
Nobody else is cash positive.
*New point* The SEC doesn't care enough about basketball to sacrifice anything about football -- not money by dilution; not tradition; not rivarlies.

I don't disagree with you.

I've said multiple times SEC expansion doesn't actually make sense. The SEC isn't going to make more money by adding ACC teams because they already control the ACC markets we want.

But I don't see the SEC letting us cherry pick the ACC. Because if we land Clemson, FSU, Miami, FSU, UNC, and UVA for 24. ESPN will be losing a significant amount of properties.

And you are way off base! ESPN will make those decisions, not the SEC. And if they want to shelter schools important to their revenue stream by putting them in the SEC that's what the pro rata clause is all about.

The SEC long ago gave a priority list to ESPN. We've almost completed it. The markets of North Carolina and Virginia were one of the last objectives, along with a second Florida School. Anything beyond attaining that will likely be an ESPN decision and the SEC paid pro rata for cooperating. Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, and an outside shot on N.C. State would all be pro rata kinds of additions if made.

Duke offers a major hoops brand but without UNC's ability to deliver the whole market in North Carolina. Still, they are a massive content multiplier in the Winter.

Clemson simply delivers the rest of a small state of 5 million where it carries half of the college sports viewers. Pro rata extended for Clemson would be for their recent success and strong regional brand. Georgia Tech would get a pro rata if ESPN wanted to lock down the Atlanta DMA. That's a tricky question. UGa carries 52% of it, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, and Clemson carry another 1 to 2% between them. Tech carries the rest and can do better in a good year like this one. Miami? Same as Clemson and Ga Tech.

The SEC has two stated goals moving forward, improve basketball and improve academic standing. I can't think of a better way to accomplish that than by taking North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and another Florida school. ESPN wants to save its growing basketball profile. They like the idea of having all 4 of the top winningest programs in the sport. If they landed all of Kansas they would have the top 5 winningest programs. Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse. The networks have to make money 4 seasons out of the year. SEC football is maxing out their numbers for now. SEC basketball has dramatically improved. Adding the national brands to it would do for basketball what Texas and Oklahoma have done for football, and do it without making it even harder than it is now. Florida State would add value there, but so too would Miami. FSU is a state school which carries more House member's support and is currently the #2 state school in Florida. That will likely be the rationale if they are added. They carry 35% of the college sports viewing market in Florida. The Gators carry 42% of it. There is some overlap but having the two ensures that ESPN keeps the top ad rates for their product in Florida.

FSU / Miami are priorities for FOX more than for the Big 10. FOX wants a bigger slice of Florida than half of UCF gives them. Outside of that 50% share in UCF ESPN owns it all.

I don't see them giving up any of it. The SEC is interested in the pass along from top ad rate status and is interested in being able to offer more games in the state of Florida than just the 4 or soon to be 5 on odd years in Gainesville. Another Florida school has long been a priority for the SEC.

I remember when many of you said that A&M would not allow another Texas school in the SEC. I remember when Big Ten pundits here were saying Texas would never stoop to the academic level of the SEC. And all of that time I kept telling them that Texas had been in talks with the SEC since 1987, that their #1 priroity was the number of games they played inside the state of Texas per year, and if something happened to the Big 12 there was only 1 conference that would meet their business model, the SEC. Why? They still play Oklahoma in Dallas annually, and A&M in Texas somewhere every year. With their two buy games that meant they would have 7 games in Texas annually and nobody else could match that. Here we are.

But I knew all of that because I had family in the discussions and after official anouncements they could talk a little bit more about what went on.

Nothing has changed in 35 years. People still believe all of the opinion offered as fact from all kinds of outside sources, reporters are still kept in the dark until the last minute, or used to float trial balloons for public opion, and the most arduous of message board warriors believe things that simply don't exist in the minds of the decision makers. And that defines most of our threads.