(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  There's a reality here that I think a lot of people are ignoring. The conferences are not in a rush to expand like people here seem to think they are. And it's going to be about who moves first not what the ACC schools prefer.

I don't think it's the SEC and Big Ten that really will want to expand, it's the other schools on the outside that will spur expansion as well as ESPN and FOX to expand their inventory. I'm not even sure the Big Ten really wanted USC or the SEC really wanted Texas, in both cases the conferences claimed the schools contacted them and it does make sense. Schools like Miami and Florida State have way more to gain contacting the SEC and Big Ten than the other way around.

There is a great deal of truth in a couple of your assertions. The SEC did not approach Texas. They inquired of us as early as 1987 when the cable subscription pay model was how conference value was ascertained and the SWC only had a two-state footprint, Texas & Arkansas. All of the sudden having 8 Texas schools and one in Arkansas just wasn't going to pay the bills. Conveniently however the Big 8 had the same issue. Their footprint consisted of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas and was smallish in the number of potential viewers. Texas was large in viewers but only one state where 2 schools covered things nicely. The Big 12 was born, but as things switched from the cable subscription model which relied on footprint inclusion as the market, things began to change again with conference networks, T1 and T2 deals on rights, and branding to draw eyeballs started to matter again. Since Texas had the LHN there was no way for the Big 12 to have their own network. Then by the time of streaming branding and the actual number of viewers for a game (now a matter of actual accounting due to smart TVs) changed the model again. During each change the SEC heard from Texas.

When the PAC 12 couldn't land a good contract due to poor viewership the Big Ten heard from them. USC had been shopping the idea of independence for about 2 years when they approached the Big Ten.

And you are correct that schools on the outside are still approaching the Big Ten and SEC. They do want in. And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

North Carolina has twice now approached the SEC the first time in 2011. It seems to me there is mutuality there as there was with UT and the SEC in that both of those schools are major brands in academics and athletics and both have sports business models predicated upon the frequency of local play. The SEC make sense in that regard, especially if UNC brings their chief rival with them. Miami, FSU and Clemson are strong enough brands and Clemson has the largest travel crowd and most consistent home crowd of the 3, but they are in a duplicated small market. The SEC wants a second Florida school for control of that market. Florida has the largest share of its state college sports market, but it is not a majority share. It would be a majority share with Miami, or a super majority share with F.S.U. Two of those sued to be able to move, so that's what I expect they will do.

ESPN's desire to keep them, if they have that desire, could well determine the outcome if ESPN pays what is necessary to make that happen. If the SEC landed Virginia, North Carolina and Duke, I believe they would be quite content with either Florida school.

Now we wait and see what ESPN wants and is willing to pay to retain. And we'll see what the Big Ten might want, and if it is worth it to FOX.

Presume you mean basketball rival, not football rival. So SEC would prefer basketball Duke vs. football NC State?

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

(11-02-2025 04:43 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  There's a reality here that I think a lot of people are ignoring. The conferences are not in a rush to expand like people here seem to think they are. And it's going to be about who moves first not what the ACC schools prefer.

I don't think it's the SEC and Big Ten that really will want to expand, it's the other schools on the outside that will spur expansion as well as ESPN and FOX to expand their inventory. I'm not even sure the Big Ten really wanted USC or the SEC really wanted Texas, in both cases the conferences claimed the schools contacted them and it does make sense. Schools like Miami and Florida State have way more to gain contacting the SEC and Big Ten than the other way around.

There is a great deal of truth in a couple of your assertions. The SEC did not approach Texas. They inquired of us as early as 1987 when the cable subscription pay model was how conference value was ascertained and the SWC only had a two-state footprint, Texas & Arkansas. All of the sudden having 8 Texas schools and one in Arkansas just wasn't going to pay the bills. Conveniently however the Big 8 had the same issue. Their footprint consisted of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas and was smallish in the number of potential viewers. Texas was large in viewers but only one state where 2 schools covered things nicely. The Big 12 was born, but as things switched from the cable subscription model which relied on footprint inclusion as the market, things began to change again with conference networks, T1 and T2 deals on rights, and branding to draw eyeballs started to matter again. Since Texas had the LHN there was no way for the Big 12 to have their own network. Then by the time of streaming branding and the actual number of viewers for a game (now a matter of actual accounting due to smart TVs) changed the model again. During each change the SEC heard from Texas.

When the PAC 12 couldn't land a good contract due to poor viewership the Big Ten heard from them. USC had been shopping the idea of independence for about 2 years when they approached the Big Ten.

And you are correct that schools on the outside are still approaching the Big Ten and SEC. They do want in. And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

North Carolina has twice now approached the SEC the first time in 2011. It seems to me there is mutuality there as there was with UT and the SEC in that both of those schools are major brands in academics and athletics and both have sports business models predicated upon the frequency of local play. The SEC make sense in that regard, especially if UNC brings their chief rival with them. Miami, FSU and Clemson are strong enough brands and Clemson has the largest travel crowd and most consistent home crowd of the 3, but they are in a duplicated small market. The SEC wants a second Florida school for control of that market. Florida has the largest share of its state college sports market, but it is not a majority share. It would be a majority share with Miami, or a super majority share with F.S.U. Two of those sued to be able to move, so that's what I expect they will do.

ESPN's desire to keep them, if they have that desire, could well determine the outcome if ESPN pays what is necessary to make that happen. If the SEC landed Virginia, North Carolina and Duke, I believe they would be quite content with either Florida school.

Now we wait and see what ESPN wants and is willing to pay to retain. And we'll see what the Big Ten might want, and if it is worth it to FOX.

Presume you mean basketball rival, not football rival. So SEC would prefer basketball Duke vs. football NC State?

I think that the SEC would prefer UVA, but in the same way that B1G thought they'd prefer Cal to Oregon until they looked at (apologies to Flugaur) their money perch. That is to say that any of UNC's actual rivals, Duke, NC St, or UVA, all bring significant downside financial risks to either of the P2. The only ACC or Big 12 schools to pair with UNC that wouldn't bring that significant downside risk today are Miami, FSU and Clemson.

Now, in 2030, that might not be the case. Maybe UVA wins 10 games a year between now and then and starts bringing in 20m eyeballs per year on the tv and sells out every home game from here till kingdom come. Maybe VT remembers who they were born to be, they hire Franklin, and they start reeling off top 10 seasons again. Maybe GT regains their former glory and turns UGA into an afterthought in Georgia. Lots can happen. But if anything were to happen today or in the near future, only UNC, FSU, Clemson and Miami make sense.

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

Not a single head scratcher? There were no head scratchers in 2021 to be sure. But then Texas and Oklahoma were two of the original six schools considered for membership in 1991. South Carolina replaced the interest expressed by Clemson before they withdrew in '91. Arkansas was a key piece from the start and Frank Broyles key in not only bringing in one of the two schools needed for the Conference Championship game permitted by the NCAA when 12 conference members allowed for the separation into two divisions. Florida State chose the ACC.

In 2012 another primary target was acquired when A&M joined. I would call Missouri a head scratcher for the general public. The back story there was Oklahoma was queried about their interest but Boren wanted to sell the Pokes with the Sooners and that didn't satisfy the renegotiation clause and there was no way in hell we were missing out on A&M or a renegotiation of value. In came the choice which seemed to most fans to come out of left field, at least those not aware of a two year effort by Mizzou2SEC.com. So the SEC has had what to the fan base at large seemed odd. South Carolina wasn't expected but accepted. Missouri wasn't expected but with time is making inroads as time permits their familiarity on the schedule to seem normal.

North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke have been part of the family before, in the old Southern Conference. And the presidents of the SEC would very much like to have an association with those three. And paying them the 35 million that each would roughly require for full membership in the SEC over and above the nearly 45 million they made under the ACC contract accounts for the 5 million you mention plus the current difference in the two conference's payouts. 105 million for the inclusen of those 3 isn't much for ESPN considering that they get to then double dip the states of Virginia and North Carolina between the SECN and ACCN, but also because those brands added to the current rise of SEC basketball and paired with Kentucky provide national eyeballs on the SEC's basketball product x 3 over what Kentucky provided.

Meanwhile a backfill of the ACC with remaining solid football brands builds the strength of schedule the Irish want, boosts the value of the remaining ACC football schools, and stabilizes their pay model while adding states to the ACCN's coverage.

No doubt that if was not going to be profitable it would not happen. But there are ways it is profitable, and perhaps with as large of a total payout that another one or two football brands could add. Only now the SEC presidents are overjoyed with the associations academically, SEC basketball is as dominant in the marketplace as SEC football, ABC benefits as well, and the two conference networks with the Diamond dominance of the SEC and extremely strong competition of the ACC's Diamond sports gives ESPN/Disney and ABC national audiences in the Fall, in the Winter, and throughout the Spring and Summer as much as college baseball and softball offer at least a modicum of fresh revenue during the economic doldrums for networks without MLB.

Oh, and one other thing, if the Big Ten plants a non-dominant flag in Miami and Atlanta and misses the state school prizes they seek for reasons beyond sports, it's not our problem, and won't impact our advertising rates or revenue.

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

Yeah, I still think it's reasonable to think if UNC brings Duke and UVA to the SEC and they get Florida St., Clemson is 21 for another FB brand to give SC and UGA another in-conference rivalry and bring in Kansas for 22 to give Missouri their primary rival in conference. I would like to think Virginia Tech is a solid #23, but I think they're left without a dance partner at the prom and miss out. Now if the B1G goes for 22 and ND isn't 1 of their 4, maybe the B1G goes for Kansas or FSU to go with Stanford, GT, and Miami and that's Virginia Tech's ticket in to the P2 dance via. the SEC (doubles down in NC and VA). I think 20 is likely, 22 is reasonable, but I'm struggling to see 24 at this time (possible in the future), but maybe I'm wrong. Others think 24 is likely though so we shall see. For the SEC, 22 doesn't change their format much, it'd be 3-6/6/6 instead of 3-6/6 with some rivalries adjusted for the new members and a 6 year rotation instead of 4 years. Same with the B1G as it'd be the same with flex protect as up to 3 rivals are protected just adding rivalries with the new members.

(11-02-2025 05:41 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

Yeah, I still think it's reasonable to think if UNC brings Duke and UVA to the SEC and they get Florida St., Clemson is 21 for another FB brand to give SC and UGA another in-conference rivalry and bring in Kansas for 22 to give Missouri their primary rival in conference. I would like to think Virginia Tech is a solid #23, but I think they're left without a dance partner at the prom and miss out. Now if the B1G goes for 22 and ND isn't 1 of their 4, maybe the B1G goes for Kansas or FSU to go with Stanford, GT, and Miami and that's Virginia Tech's ticket in to the P2 dance via. the SEC (doubles down in NC and VA). I think 20 is likely, 22 is reasonable, but I'm struggling to see 24 at this time (possible in the future), but maybe I'm wrong. Others think 24 is likely though so we shall see. For the SEC, 22 doesn't change their format much, it'd be 3-6/6/6 instead of 3-6/6 with some rivalries adjusted for the new members and a 6 year rotation instead of 4 years. Same with the B1G as it'd be the same with flex protect as up to 3 rivals are protected just adding rivalries with the new members.

22 is quite possible if the ACC diminishes in the wake of the departures. In that case the pairings you suggest are sound speculation. Clemson and Kansas would complete things for the SEC.

But folks need to remember if all the ACC loses are Duke, North Carolina and Virginia, along with FSU. Would not N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Louisville all have easier paths to the CFP?

Frankly the only thing that would place the ACC in immediate jeopardy would be the withdrawal of the SEC and Big Ten from the NCAA. That move would occur in preparation for a fuller monetization of basketball and would likely result in a closed upper tier established by investment levels, and permeable to those who could raise themselves to that level, and which would have slots opened by those who could no longer sustain them. In that world it would make inordinate sense for the SEC and Big Ten to market themselves as one but maintain their separate identities.

Do that and they maximize the value of all of their competition, level the playing field economically, and can have a set number of games in all sports set up for the network providers.

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

I was using the schools that JR suggested in his post for the SEC. I used FSU rather than Clemson for the SEC because I needed to pick one. I just wanted to demonstrate the inherent problem with trying to keep a competitor out of your market.

Thinking about it, though, Georgia Tech and Miami both seem to fit more into the B1G than Clemson. Much easier travel into Miami and Atlanta than rural SC and better academics to boot.

And all of this is back to my original point -- none of it makes sense for the SEC.

There is none if they add ACC schools. Don’t let espin lie to you.

(11-03-2025 06:16 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

I was using the schools that JR suggested in his post for the SEC. I used FSU rather than Clemson for the SEC because I needed to pick one. I just wanted to demonstrate the inherent problem with trying to keep a competitor out of your market.

Thinking about it, though, Georgia Tech and Miami both seem to fit more into the B1G than Clemson. Much easier travel into Miami and Atlanta than rural SC and better academics to boot.

And all of this is back to my original point -- none of it makes sense for the SEC.

I have been saying the same thing.

Expecting ESPN to shell out 420+ million dollars a year for unnecessary expansion doesn't seem likely. Why exactly does it matter if the Big 10 has teams in the south? UGA won't have less views because GT is playing Rutgers.

(11-02-2025 04:43 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:44 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 02:38 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  There's a reality here that I think a lot of people are ignoring. The conferences are not in a rush to expand like people here seem to think they are. And it's going to be about who moves first not what the ACC schools prefer.

I don't think it's the SEC and Big Ten that really will want to expand, it's the other schools on the outside that will spur expansion as well as ESPN and FOX to expand their inventory. I'm not even sure the Big Ten really wanted USC or the SEC really wanted Texas, in both cases the conferences claimed the schools contacted them and it does make sense. Schools like Miami and Florida State have way more to gain contacting the SEC and Big Ten than the other way around.

There is a great deal of truth in a couple of your assertions. The SEC did not approach Texas. They inquired of us as early as 1987 when the cable subscription pay model was how conference value was ascertained and the SWC only had a two-state footprint, Texas & Arkansas. All of the sudden having 8 Texas schools and one in Arkansas just wasn't going to pay the bills. Conveniently however the Big 8 had the same issue. Their footprint consisted of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma and Kansas and was smallish in the number of potential viewers. Texas was large in viewers but only one state where 2 schools covered things nicely. The Big 12 was born, but as things switched from the cable subscription model which relied on footprint inclusion as the market, things began to change again with conference networks, T1 and T2 deals on rights, and branding to draw eyeballs started to matter again. Since Texas had the LHN there was no way for the Big 12 to have their own network. Then by the time of streaming branding and the actual number of viewers for a game (now a matter of actual accounting due to smart TVs) changed the model again. During each change the SEC heard from Texas.

When the PAC 12 couldn't land a good contract due to poor viewership the Big Ten heard from them. USC had been shopping the idea of independence for about 2 years when they approached the Big Ten.

And you are correct that schools on the outside are still approaching the Big Ten and SEC. They do want in. And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

North Carolina has twice now approached the SEC the first time in 2011. It seems to me there is mutuality there as there was with UT and the SEC in that both of those schools are major brands in academics and athletics and both have sports business models predicated upon the frequency of local play. The SEC make sense in that regard, especially if UNC brings their chief rival with them. Miami, FSU and Clemson are strong enough brands and Clemson has the largest travel crowd and most consistent home crowd of the 3, but they are in a duplicated small market. The SEC wants a second Florida school for control of that market. Florida has the largest share of its state college sports market, but it is not a majority share. It would be a majority share with Miami, or a super majority share with F.S.U. Two of those sued to be able to move, so that's what I expect they will do.

ESPN's desire to keep them, if they have that desire, could well determine the outcome if ESPN pays what is necessary to make that happen. If the SEC landed Virginia, North Carolina and Duke, I believe they would be quite content with either Florida school.

Now we wait and see what ESPN wants and is willing to pay to retain. And we'll see what the Big Ten might want, and if it is worth it to FOX.

Presume you mean basketball rival, not football rival. So SEC would prefer basketball Duke vs. football NC State?

I would rank NC State no higher than 4th as a rival in any sport for Carolina, behind Duke, UVa, and Wake Forest.

Let's unlock this old treasure:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-6580.html

(11-03-2025 06:16 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

I was using the schools that JR suggested in his post for the SEC. I used FSU rather than Clemson for the SEC because I needed to pick one. I just wanted to demonstrate the inherent problem with trying to keep a competitor out of your market.

Thinking about it, though, Georgia Tech and Miami both seem to fit more into the B1G than Clemson. Much easier travel into Miami and Atlanta than rural SC and better academics to boot.

And all of this is back to my original point -- none of it makes sense for the SEC.

One last time politely.

The point is not to take all possible schools of interest. The point is to take the profitable schools of interest to discourage the Big Ten's interest.

If ESPN moves North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Florida State to the SEC it removes two of the largest 3 states outside of Florida from the Big Ten. They aren't inviting N.C. State and Virginia Tech. They lose the 3 academic jewels they hoped to have a shot at gaining, and Florida State gives the SEC and through the SEC, ESPN control of the Florida market with what on paper looks like 77% of the college sports viewers in the state, though in reality there is some overlap so at least a clear majority.

Outside of Notre Dame that also includes 3 of the top 4 valued schools possible for SEC/Big Ten expansion, Virginia being the only one not in the top 5. Miami on a good year carries about 19% of the Florida college sports market. As a DMA it delivers about 6.5 million potential viewers. That would likely be worth it to the Big 10, and they do have an international airport so that add is conceivable. The point is the SEC has only a little presence in that market anyway, which they wouldn't lose. The SEC would be gaining control of Florida and if the Big Ten took Miami the SEC wouldn't be losing anything they already had. ESPN maintains their top ad rates for the state.

That would leave AAU Georgia Tech which controls about 46% of the Atlanta DMA while Georgia controls 52% of it and Alabama, Auburn, South Carolina and Tennessee combine for about another 2%. The Atlanta DMA is 6.2 million potential viewers, but Ga Tech controls only about 3 million of those. Could the Big Ten find enough value in 3 million to do it? They don't look at Kansas because they only represent 3 million. I don't see it. But maybe. If the Big Ten took Miami and Ga Tech at least both have international air hubs. It's easy to get in and out of both. Miami's valuation is lower than that of Georgia Tech, but Miami carries a higher % of their 6 million plus population. If they added both the SEC loses nothing. They still hold the majority of viewers in Georgia and Florida.

With the deal the SEC picks up 21 million combined potential viewers in Virginia and North Carolina, and the important part is that the ACC doesn't lose them toward their ACCN network count and the SECN picks them up and ESPN makes 50% of the NET profits from each. Why is that important? The math and profit work together there.

It is assumed the SEC's media payouts will be between 72 to 75 million next year. So, for the sake of argument let's call that 72 million. The ACC's media payouts this year were between 42-45 million depending on tourney creds and bowl shares. Therefore, if we just call it 30 million more for the move to the SEC for each school, we are looking at a total overhead cost of 120 million to ESPN. The average ACC/SEC school makes around 10 million in profit from the conference Network give or take a million. If Virginia and North Carolina and Duke are added to the SEC, the ACCN loses nothing and the SECN gets subscription rates for those two states which are charged to the subscriber. ESPN double dips two states of 21 million combined population. They pick up 30 million on subscriptions. The cost of the move is down to 90 million. If they replace those 4 schools that moved with West Virginia, Tulane, South Florida, and Connecticut, they add 3 states to their carriage. If they sub another Texas school for WVU or UConn, they get a bigger slice of Texas than just DFW for SMU. ESPN picks up more revenue and if they pay those schools half shares to start for the ACC.

There is no 450 million or whatever Trojan claimed for added overhead to ESPN. They keep a viable ACC, with Notre Dame, who gets a scheduling agreement with the SEC, they keep FOX from gaining ad leverage in any their holdings from Virginia South through Kentucky into Missouri and down through DFW to the Mexico border.

If they pick up Kansas for the ACC, they add another blueblood for hoops and they clean the board of their objectives. Sub Kansas for UConn, and substitute Baylor or Houston for West Virginia, pick up Tulane and South Florida and that's a pretty nice conference. I would suspect two of those would enter for full shares and two for half.

Why do this? It's the cheapest way of protecting ESPN's revenue model, protecting the SEC's control over the region and its financial model which grows with the addition of North Carolina and Virginia as states in its footprint, and it doesn't really deplete the ACC if they add the right 4 schools.

A 100 million to secure it all is cheap. And ESPN is picking up inventory to sell. Adding major value multiplication to SEC basketball and picking up more solid viewership games with FSU playing an SEC schedule.

(11-02-2025 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:41 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

Yeah, I still think it's reasonable to think if UNC brings Duke and UVA to the SEC and they get Florida St., Clemson is 21 for another FB brand to give SC and UGA another in-conference rivalry and bring in Kansas for 22 to give Missouri their primary rival in conference. I would like to think Virginia Tech is a solid #23, but I think they're left without a dance partner at the prom and miss out. Now if the B1G goes for 22 and ND isn't 1 of their 4, maybe the B1G goes for Kansas or FSU to go with Stanford, GT, and Miami and that's Virginia Tech's ticket in to the P2 dance via. the SEC (doubles down in NC and VA). I think 20 is likely, 22 is reasonable, but I'm struggling to see 24 at this time (possible in the future), but maybe I'm wrong. Others think 24 is likely though so we shall see. For the SEC, 22 doesn't change their format much, it'd be 3-6/6/6 instead of 3-6/6 with some rivalries adjusted for the new members and a 6 year rotation instead of 4 years. Same with the B1G as it'd be the same with flex protect as up to 3 rivals are protected just adding rivalries with the new members.

22 is quite possible if the ACC diminishes in the wake of the departures. In that case the pairings you suggest are sound speculation. Clemson and Kansas would complete things for the SEC.

But folks need to remember if all the ACC loses are Duke, North Carolina and Virginia, along with FSU. Would not N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Louisville all have easier paths to the CFP?

Frankly the only thing that would place the ACC in immediate jeopardy would be the withdrawal of the SEC and Big Ten from the NCAA. That move would occur in preparation for a fuller monetization of basketball and would likely result in a closed upper tier established by investment levels, and permeable to those who could raise themselves to that level, and which would have slots opened by those who could no longer sustain them. In that world it would make inordinate sense for the SEC and Big Ten to market themselves as one but maintain their separate identities.

Do that and they maximize the value of all of their competition, level the playing field economically, and can have a set number of games in all sports set up for the network providers.

That's where the money is headed.

(11-03-2025 08:06 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:41 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 05:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

6 schools and no Clemson? Clemson is the most SEC-like of the bunch, they'd fit like a glove in the SEC or be a nice shot in the arm for the B1G. Clemson requires no changes whatsoever to be a worthy P2 addition. Duke, UVA and GT all require the P2 to significantly change our criteria for additions and run the risk of costing all existing members millions in perpetuity in lost potential revenues. Not impossible ofc, but also not likely imo.

Yeah, I still think it's reasonable to think if UNC brings Duke and UVA to the SEC and they get Florida St., Clemson is 21 for another FB brand to give SC and UGA another in-conference rivalry and bring in Kansas for 22 to give Missouri their primary rival in conference. I would like to think Virginia Tech is a solid #23, but I think they're left without a dance partner at the prom and miss out. Now if the B1G goes for 22 and ND isn't 1 of their 4, maybe the B1G goes for Kansas or FSU to go with Stanford, GT, and Miami and that's Virginia Tech's ticket in to the P2 dance via. the SEC (doubles down in NC and VA). I think 20 is likely, 22 is reasonable, but I'm struggling to see 24 at this time (possible in the future), but maybe I'm wrong. Others think 24 is likely though so we shall see. For the SEC, 22 doesn't change their format much, it'd be 3-6/6/6 instead of 3-6/6 with some rivalries adjusted for the new members and a 6 year rotation instead of 4 years. Same with the B1G as it'd be the same with flex protect as up to 3 rivals are protected just adding rivalries with the new members.

22 is quite possible if the ACC diminishes in the wake of the departures. In that case the pairings you suggest are sound speculation. Clemson and Kansas would complete things for the SEC.

But folks need to remember if all the ACC loses are Duke, North Carolina and Virginia, along with FSU. Would not N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Louisville all have easier paths to the CFP?

Frankly the only thing that would place the ACC in immediate jeopardy would be the withdrawal of the SEC and Big Ten from the NCAA. That move would occur in preparation for a fuller monetization of basketball and would likely result in a closed upper tier established by investment levels, and permeable to those who could raise themselves to that level, and which would have slots opened by those who could no longer sustain them. In that world it would make inordinate sense for the SEC and Big Ten to market themselves as one but maintain their separate identities.

Do that and they maximize the value of all of their competition, level the playing field economically, and can have a set number of games in all sports set up for the network providers.

That's where the money is headed.

Yes, but if an upper tier forms, there has to be a permeable barrier which would allow for those otherwise left behind to meet a threshold of investment and make th move with them. If they do that inclusivity is not questioned but a matter of affordability. That is where the N.C. State and Virginia Techs get in. If we remain as we are with just 2 conferences being the best paid, that will be more ruinous of the fortunes of other programs than a clear breakaway where the benchmarks of inclusion would have to be set and inclusion left up to the choices of those who could afford it.

(11-03-2025 07:40 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  Let's unlock this old treasure:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-6580.html

Athletic directors across the conference said there are no current discussions about SEC expansion.

"I don't see anybody out there that the SEC feels would bring to the table enough TV sets to warrant the split of the revenue," Broyles said. "... It would have to have a big TV set base and fan base to warrant the additional split of the money."

At last month's SEC spring meetings, it was projected that number would jump to $101.9 million this year. The addition of another school would cost member schools millions of dollars. Last year, the league's member schools shared $95.7 million from football and basketball revenues.

"There are really only a couple of reasons to expand," Turner said. "One is for money. The other is for philosophical institutional reasons and/or power. ... You've got to get through the first one before you can get to the second one, and I just don't currently see that as a possibility down the road."



Right now the BCS conferences that ECU fits and are lobbying to get into, the ACC and the SEC, are locked at 12, and the ACC released a similar article several months back saying anything higher then 12 teams severely cuts into their profit.

Funny how people 20 years ago had much the same thoughts that many of us have today, though SEC revenues back then were about 1/10th of what they are now. Also interesting seeing that quote about Broyles. I know that he had a big impact on Arkansas, but...wow. 50 years as football coach or AD, and both for a couple of years. Arkansas left the SWC the year before I started at A&M, and they haven't been much competition since we joined the SEC, but Broyles was something special, and he made Arkansas a special place for a very long time, too.

I read the article. It said the SEC was "currently" not looking at expansion. This doesn't mean that expansion can't happen in the future. It just means presently expansion is not on the horizon. $$'s was the thing that both Broyles and Turner mentioned quite a bit in that article. At one time, I seriously believed that the SEC was looking to get VT maybe 5 years out in the future. However, the ACC effectively squashed that idea with taking VT in expansion. As for Texas & TAMU (Texas A&M U.), if the SEC ever wanted them, the SEC should have went after them back when the SWC was still in existence. The SEC failed to do so, so that idea has been dead for quite some time. Apparently, according to the article, the SEC knows of another school that will bring serious $$ into the conference, but hasn't named it yet. Maybe that school is ND? 03-wink

Fun reading this 21 year old quote from DawgNBama... I wonder what that school was in 2004? Couldn't have been A&M way back then, we were still locked into the Big 12

(11-03-2025 09:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-03-2025 07:40 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  Let's unlock this old treasure:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-6580.html

Athletic directors across the conference said there are no current discussions about SEC expansion.

"I don't see anybody out there that the SEC feels would bring to the table enough TV sets to warrant the split of the revenue," Broyles said. "... It would have to have a big TV set base and fan base to warrant the additional split of the money."

At last month's SEC spring meetings, it was projected that number would jump to $101.9 million this year. The addition of another school would cost member schools millions of dollars. Last year, the league's member schools shared $95.7 million from football and basketball revenues.

"There are really only a couple of reasons to expand," Turner said. "One is for money. The other is for philosophical institutional reasons and/or power. ... You've got to get through the first one before you can get to the second one, and I just don't currently see that as a possibility down the road."



Right now the BCS conferences that ECU fits and are lobbying to get into, the ACC and the SEC, are locked at 12, and the ACC released a similar article several months back saying anything higher then 12 teams severely cuts into their profit.

Funny how people 20 years ago had much the same thoughts that many of us have today, though SEC revenues back then were about 1/10th of what they are now. Also interesting seeing that quote about Broyles. I know that he had a big impact on Arkansas, but...wow. 50 years as football coach or AD, and both for a couple of years. Arkansas left the SWC the year before I started at A&M, and they haven't been much competition since we joined the SEC, but Broyles was something special, and he made Arkansas a special place for a very long time, too.

I read the article. It said the SEC was "currently" not looking at expansion. This doesn't mean that expansion can't happen in the future. It just means presently expansion is not on the horizon. $$'s was the thing that both Broyles and Turner mentioned quite a bit in that article. At one time, I seriously believed that the SEC was looking to get VT maybe 5 years out in the future. However, the ACC effectively squashed that idea with taking VT in expansion. As for Texas & TAMU (Texas A&M U.), if the SEC ever wanted them, the SEC should have went after them back when the SWC was still in existence. The SEC failed to do so, so that idea has been dead for quite some time. Apparently, according to the article, the SEC knows of another school that will bring serious $$ into the conference, but hasn't named it yet. Maybe that school is ND? 03-wink

Fun reading this 21 year old quote from DawgNBama... I wonder what that school was in 2004? Couldn't have been A&M way back then, we were still locked into the Big 12

Clemson or, more likely, FSU probably.

(11-03-2025 09:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-03-2025 07:40 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  Let's unlock this old treasure:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-6580.html

Athletic directors across the conference said there are no current discussions about SEC expansion.

"I don't see anybody out there that the SEC feels would bring to the table enough TV sets to warrant the split of the revenue," Broyles said. "... It would have to have a big TV set base and fan base to warrant the additional split of the money."

At last month's SEC spring meetings, it was projected that number would jump to $101.9 million this year. The addition of another school would cost member schools millions of dollars. Last year, the league's member schools shared $95.7 million from football and basketball revenues.

"There are really only a couple of reasons to expand," Turner said. "One is for money. The other is for philosophical institutional reasons and/or power. ... You've got to get through the first one before you can get to the second one, and I just don't currently see that as a possibility down the road."



Right now the BCS conferences that ECU fits and are lobbying to get into, the ACC and the SEC, are locked at 12, and the ACC released a similar article several months back saying anything higher then 12 teams severely cuts into their profit.

Funny how people 20 years ago had much the same thoughts that many of us have today, though SEC revenues back then were about 1/10th of what they are now. Also interesting seeing that quote about Broyles. I know that he had a big impact on Arkansas, but...wow. 50 years as football coach or AD, and both for a couple of years. Arkansas left the SWC the year before I started at A&M, and they haven't been much competition since we joined the SEC, but Broyles was something special, and he made Arkansas a special place for a very long time, too.

I read the article. It said the SEC was "currently" not looking at expansion. This doesn't mean that expansion can't happen in the future. It just means presently expansion is not on the horizon. $$'s was the thing that both Broyles and Turner mentioned quite a bit in that article. At one time, I seriously believed that the SEC was looking to get VT maybe 5 years out in the future. However, the ACC effectively squashed that idea with taking VT in expansion. As for Texas & TAMU (Texas A&M U.), if the SEC ever wanted them, the SEC should have went after them back when the SWC was still in existence. The SEC failed to do so, so that idea has been dead for quite some time. Apparently, according to the article, the SEC knows of another school that will bring serious $$ into the conference, but hasn't named it yet. Maybe that school is ND? 03-wink

Fun reading this 21 year old quote from DawgNBama... I wonder what that school was in 2004? Couldn't have been A&M way back then, we were still locked into the Big 12

For the last 36 years there has only been 1 position for the SEC and Big Ten with regards to expansion: "We are happy with our conference the way it stands now and are not looking to expand. We will however pay attention to what is going on around us."

That is the official position until an announcement is made of who is joining next.

Talks got started in '87, Penn State joined in '90 and we were off to the races. It took the conferences 7 years following the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA case to figure out how to maximize revenues and figure out what the actual games might be worth. People forget that the NCAA controlled it for so long no commissioner or AD, or networks for that matter had an inkling as to what the whole rights for a conference was worth. They moved slowly until they figured out how much gold was left to mined in those contracts.

When Slive was asked how big a conference could grow, he stated that the limit on the size of a conferences was profitability. Since profitability can be enhanced by brand, by market size, and by maximizing revenue in a secondary revenue sport nobody has defined when profitability runs out yet.

And since 2011 I've heard that each next realignment will be the last because it would no longer be profitable. 16 was going to max out profitability. Then 18 was a bridge too far. Now we are looking at 20 and contemplating 22, and wondering about 24. You know being exclusive is profitable too!

Nothing new under the sun! They will realize when it becomes unprofitable because it will sneak up on them and bite them in the butt!

(11-02-2025 03:52 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2025 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you are also correct that the networks are still wanting to increase inventory. And that is why one sock up is wrong about networks driving this matter. Neither the SEC nor Big Ten can afford to turn away major brands or markets. Those are the money plays moving forward and NIL and eventually some form of pay to the athletes is only going to drive up overhead.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of the SEC, not what is in the best interest of ESPN. They have a good partnership with ESPN, but not good enough to make a huge decision that is not in the SEC's overall best interest.

JR, for all of your talk about how we the public doesn't know everything and that sometimes decisions seem like they don't make sense on the surface, the SEC has not made a single head-scratching realignment decision. Every move it has made has been obviously in the best interest of its member institutions and has made perfect sense. Adding Virginia and Duke would cost the SEC money, risk the SEC losing its clear football dominance, and be a scheduling disaster.

It took years of negotiation and wound up costing ESPN $60 million per year for the SEC to add a ninth conference game. What would the financial trade be for this type of four-team influx to happen? Probably enough to just keep the ACC together. . .

And always remember that even if the SEC gets Virginia, Duke, UNC, and Florida State, the Big Ten could still get Georgia Tech and Miami -- thereby planting their flag and their partner networks' flags in SEC territory.

I would consider South Carolina a "head scratcher". A third choice in the east after Florida State and Clemson said no.

South Carolina was on life support and their chief rival at the time was East Carolina.

When the NFL truly embraced the National/American conferences the Colts, Browns and Steelers were transferred from one conference to the other AND when MLB needed to do the same to even up the number of teams in the American and National Leagues for playoff purposes, Houston was moved from the National to the American League.

If the SEC and B1G go to 20, 22 or 24, schools will be shifted. There will be no protected regions and the south will be riddled with B1G teams.
You had better be careful what you wish for.

Here’s the thing, ESPN extended the ACC contract to 2036, it would not make sense to sabotage the ACC’s value until after 2036. There is the possibility that the top ACC brands could be satisfied with the ACC in the next round of negotiations. I believe the ACC contract should get a large bump up in pay and the other members know that the value of the contract is directly related to keeping the top members happy so they’ll acquiesce to whatever demands are so that the conference does not fall apart.