(10-29-2025 04:07 PM)JRsec 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.

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.

Ultimately, it is about $$s.

The Big Ten presidents REALLY wanted Stanford and Cal. The TV networks told them they weren't paying for them. So they didn't invite them.

In 2011, the OU president and enough of the rest wanted to add Louisville to the Big 12 after they added WVU. But they needed a 12th and the networks told them they weren't paying for Cincinnati or whoever else they looked at. So they stayed at 10.

(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?

GT has shown us a lot with their TV numbers the past couple of years, but they're on the wrong side of the Missouri Line.

(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.

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

(10-29-2025 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 04:07 PM)JRsec 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.

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.

Ultimately, it is about $$s.

The Big Ten presidents REALLY wanted Stanford and Cal. The TV networks told them they weren't paying for them. So they didn't invite them.

In 2011, the OU president and enough of the rest wanted to add Louisville to the Big 12 after they added WVU. But they needed a 12th and the networks told them they weren't paying for Cincinnati or whoever else they looked at. So they stayed at 10.

It's too bad for the Big 12 that BYU wasn't on the menu in 2011. I don't know that Louisville + BYU would have brought enough to keep OUT in the fold in 2021, and I'm really happy that things have worked out the way that they have with OUT joining the SEC, but that's an interesting "what if".

(10-29-2025 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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.

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

Just 3 little words Bryan are all that will determine any of this: money, exposure, proximity. AAU schools as you noted all share grants with other AAU schools and sometimes with non-AAU schools which have extreme expertise in a single discipline.

The money will be comparable for TV rights. The total ledger and sports fit, especially due to diamond sports is with the SEC. Exposure is solidly in the SEC's favor. Proximity likely matters to all ACC schools save Virginia which is a wash between the two conferences' main body of schools.

(10-29-2025 05:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 04:07 PM)JRsec 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.

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.

Ultimately, it is about $$s.

The Big Ten presidents REALLY wanted Stanford and Cal. The TV networks told them they weren't paying for them. So they didn't invite them.

In 2011, the OU president and enough of the rest wanted to add Louisville to the Big 12 after they added WVU. But they needed a 12th and the networks told them they weren't paying for Cincinnati or whoever else they looked at. So they stayed at 10.

It's too bad for the Big 12 that BYU wasn't on the menu in 2011. I don't know that Louisville + BYU would have brought enough to keep OUT in the fold in 2021, and I'm really happy that things have worked out the way that they have with OUT joining the SEC, but that's an interesting "what if".

That's why I phrased that sentence that way. I suspect they would have paid for UL + BYU. That was 2011 prices, not P2 2025 prices.

(10-29-2025 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

Just 3 little words Bryan are all that will determine any of this: money, exposure, proximity. AAU schools as you noted all share grants with other AAU schools and sometimes with non-AAU schools which have extreme expertise in a single discipline.

The money will be comparable for TV rights. The total ledger and sports fit, especially due to diamond sports is with the SEC. Exposure is solidly in the SEC's favor. Proximity likely matters to all ACC schools save Virginia which is a wash between the two conferences' main body of schools.

The Florida to Virginia schools will depend on who is in power. Sometimes its the president. Sometimes its the board. And whoever is the decision maker will pick.
Anybody north of the Mason Dixon line or west of Oklahoma would choose the Big Ten if they had the option. Anybody in Texas or Oklahoma would choose the SEC. Nobody would turn either down if it was their only offer.

Virginia Tech would seem to be an SEC leaning school. But back in 2016 they had a real anti-SEC president. Same for FSU. Maybe a few you could predict with a lot of certainty regardless of the president. Given a choice, Duke would go with the Big Ten. Clemson and Louisville would go with the SEC (not that they would necessarily have a choice). So with FSU, Miami, GT, UNC, UVA, NCSU, VPI, it would depend.

Realistically, anyone other than FSU, Miami, UVA and UNC are extremely unlikely to have a choice.

(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.

They control enough of the NC/VA markets?

(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.

Is every school in the SEC cash positive?

(10-29-2025 07:00 PM)WhidbeyWolf 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.

Is every school in the SEC cash positive?

(10-29-2025 08:59 PM)Squiggles Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:00 PM)WhidbeyWolf 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.

Is every school in the SEC cash positive?

Idiocracy. How appropriate. Is Frito your defense attorney or are you "not sure!"

(10-29-2025 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 08:59 PM)Squiggles Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:00 PM)WhidbeyWolf 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.

Is every school in the SEC cash positive?

Idiocracy. How appropriate. Is Frito your defense attorney or are you "not sure!"

I'm taking whoever Costco assigns to me.

(10-29-2025 09:14 PM)Squiggles Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 09:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 08:59 PM)Squiggles Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 07:00 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

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

Is every school in the SEC cash positive?

Idiocracy. How appropriate. Is Frito your defense attorney or are you "not sure!"

I'm taking whoever Costco assigns to me.

Short Brawndo!

(10-29-2025 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Ultimately, it is about $$s.

The Big Ten presidents REALLY wanted Stanford and Cal. The TV networks told them they weren't paying for them. So they didn't invite them.

I don't buy this for a second! Both of these schools checked every single box the Big 10 wanted. I honestly think that when they knew that they could get USC and UCLA they inquired about them, but found out that they were trying to get away from them due to all of the baggage they brought with them an said HARD PASS when they found out.....

(10-29-2025 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

Just 3 little words Bryan are all that will determine any of this: money, exposure, proximity. AAU schools as you noted all share grants with other AAU schools and sometimes with non-AAU schools which have extreme expertise in a single discipline.

The money will be comparable for TV rights. The total ledger and sports fit, especially due to diamond sports is with the SEC. Exposure is solidly in the SEC's favor. Proximity likely matters to all ACC schools save Virginia which is a wash between the two conferences' main body of schools.

The point of my post is the value of the SEC is exploding before our eyes. We will not see the next financial leap for about another five years, and we are just now realizing the latest incredible bump from getting out of the CBS contract, but the value of the SEC product is at an all-time high based on the quality and quantity of elite SEC conference games.

(10-29-2025 11:37 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

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

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

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

Just 3 little words Bryan are all that will determine any of this: money, exposure, proximity. AAU schools as you noted all share grants with other AAU schools and sometimes with non-AAU schools which have extreme expertise in a single discipline.

The money will be comparable for TV rights. The total ledger and sports fit, especially due to diamond sports is with the SEC. Exposure is solidly in the SEC's favor. Proximity likely matters to all ACC schools save Virginia which is a wash between the two conferences' main body of schools.

The point of my post is the value of the SEC is exploding before our eyes. We will not see the next financial leap for about another five years, and we are just now realizing the latest incredible bump from getting out of the CBS contract, but the value of the SEC product is at an all-time high based on the quality and quantity of elite SEC conference games.

Yes, and that is why we will have a leg up on any future growth. What hasn't been mentioned yet, is that the SEC ratings are not only taking off, and dominating the top 3 slots, but CBS's ratings with the Big Ten have fallen over their SEC years. The public is noticing and responding.

Every expansion has an upside or they wouldn't have been made, but we have come to the fork in the road where any expansion may carry downside as well.
The SEC has been so smart and consistent about their choices, but any further expansion no carry risks.

Of the four schools oft mentioned (FSU, Clemson, Carolina and UVa) for SEC expansion, each pair carries risk.

Florida State and Clemson would fit like a glove into SEC culture, but these are the two schools the SEC needs the least.
The SEC already owns the markets, or at least a good share where those schools are located. Adding FSU and Clemson only mean increased competition for resources for very little increase in revenue.
Carolina and Virginia on the other hand are total opposites. Neither are cultural fits for the SEC, but the potential market means that the pair could offer a financial boon to the conference. The downside is that the uneasy fit could create friction within the conference which is something the SEC does not experience now.

The other overriding negative is that taking all four weakens the asset value of the ACC and reduces the profitability of ESPN.

A real quandary.

I think 14 bids to the Big Dance is enough of a cultural fit for Carolina. We’ll see if it was a one off or the way of the future.

(10-29-2025 11:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 11:37 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2025 05:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

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

I don't think it's about Vibes so much as it's about, as our friend Frank the Tank would say, "think like a President". If I'm a University President, and I'm considering switching conferences for Athletic reasons, and I have a reasonable expectation that either of the P2 would be interested in adding my school, then I'm going to compare what each of the P2 could bring to my school:

1. What's my school's expected pay going to be from making this move? Which P2 will pay us more in the long run? Will the payouts be close, or will one or the other be likely to pay significantly more in the long run?
2. What's the geography like? How much worse will my travel be in one of the P2 vs the other?
3. Should I factor Academics into this? Would joining one or the other Conference offer my school a way to advance our Academic standing? Any Academic financial considerations?

For the ACC schools, #1 and 2 favor the SEC, while #3 might favor the B1G somewhat. However, AAU membership carries more clout than B1G membership, and most of the schools under consideration or AAU or could hope to be soon. If I'm FSU, do I think that a B1G move would further my AAU cause, or would I get vetoed by Michigan and Wisconsin, just like they helped get Nebraska kicked from the AAU right after they joined the B1G?

The problem for the B1G when looking at anybody in the M2 is that the SEC has a significant advantage with the long time ACC schools, and both the P2 have been giving Big 12 schools the cold shoulders for years. I don't blame Stechs for his thinking that other factors could matter more to some schools than others, but the schools that they might matter more to are schools that the SEC wouldn't want anyway. Schools like Cal or Stanford, for example. Great schools, but really far outside of SEC's region, awkward cultural fits, and unlikely to move the financial needle in the right direction for us.

Just 3 little words Bryan are all that will determine any of this: money, exposure, proximity. AAU schools as you noted all share grants with other AAU schools and sometimes with non-AAU schools which have extreme expertise in a single discipline.

The money will be comparable for TV rights. The total ledger and sports fit, especially due to diamond sports is with the SEC. Exposure is solidly in the SEC's favor. Proximity likely matters to all ACC schools save Virginia which is a wash between the two conferences' main body of schools.

The point of my post is the value of the SEC is exploding before our eyes. We will not see the next financial leap for about another five years, and we are just now realizing the latest incredible bump from getting out of the CBS contract, but the value of the SEC product is at an all-time high based on the quality and quantity of elite SEC conference games.

Yes, and that is why we will have a leg up on any future growth. What hasn't been mentioned yet, is that the SEC ratings are not only taking off, and dominating the top 3 slots, but CBS's ratings with the Big Ten have fallen over their SEC years. The public is noticing and responding.

If the SEC's viewership numbers continue to climb, the leg up might be head and shoulders above everyone else.

(10-30-2025 04:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  Every expansion has an upside or they wouldn't have been made, but we have come to the fork in the road where any expansion may carry downside as well.
The SEC has been so smart and consistent about their choices, but any further expansion no carry risks.

Of the four schools oft mentioned (FSU, Clemson, Carolina and UVa) for SEC expansion, each pair carries risk.

Florida State and Clemson would fit like a glove into SEC culture, but these are the two schools the SEC needs the least.
The SEC already owns the markets, or at least a good share where those schools are located. Adding FSU and Clemson only mean increased competition for resources for very little increase in revenue.
Carolina and Virginia on the other hand are total opposites. Neither are cultural fits for the SEC, but the potential market means that the pair could offer a financial boon to the conference. The downside is that the uneasy fit could create friction within the conference which is something the SEC does not experience now.

The other overriding negative is that taking all four weakens the asset value of the ACC and reduces the profitability of ESPN.

A real quandary.

Missouri and Oklahoma don’t fit the SEC culture but here we are.

UNC and Virginia get the SEC into new markets and new states. Florida State does get them a bigger share of one of the biggest states but it is still duplicating what they already have. Clemson does nothing to expand the footprint or market share. A bigger name than South Carolina but still in a small state with no major cities.

North Carolina and Virginia are in bigger markets that are growing. It gets the league into the DC area. Neither are football blue bloods but are at least usually decent. Improves the basketball status by adding a true blue blood and another with a good history and fairly recent championship.