(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance 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.

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.

Lance, at no point in time was South Carolina’s “chief rival” ECU. You know this is fact and trying to use this as an insult to the Cocks (and as an insult to ECU) is intellectually dishonest.

I do appreciate the laugh this provided, however.

(11-04-2025 08:45 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance 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.

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.

Lance, at no point in time was South Carolina’s “chief rival” ECU. You know this is fact and trying to use this as an insult to the Cocks (and as an insult to ECU) is intellectually dishonest.

I do appreciate the laugh this provided, however.

Carolina’s prime rivals are Clemson and Georgia. Disgruntled UNC Tar Heel fans who are envious, bitter, and are still fretting over Carolina leaving the ACC over a half century ago, need to let it go. As time passes, the very few that are still around disturbed about the Gamecocks leaving the ACC, are quickly diminishing. The Gamecocks have been SEC members for thirty five years.
When Carolina plays East Carolina, that’s suppose to be an insult? ECU is a respectable school. Carolina doesn’t beg UNC for anything. They said bye-bye to the ACC and that Tobacco Road and their immense co-dependency a couple of generations ago. That however, will get fragmented. ESPN won’t keep it glued together.

Maryland later figured it out also.

(11-03-2025 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

Your maths aren't working quite the way they need to.

For backdrop: The SEC just negotiated $5 million per school to add a ninth conference game. That's $80 million that came out of ESPN's pocket.

What you are posting here is a break-even move by the SEC and justifying it by ESPN's best interest. You're talking about a huge shift in the composition of the SEC, so the SEC would need to be compensated accordingly -- not just break even.

(Also, the ACC media payout you cited includes playoff revenue and NCAA Tournament credits which are not included in the projected $72 million media deal for the SEC.)

For each SEC school to make just an additional $5 million, adding four schools would cost ESPN $72 million x 4 four schools = $288 million plus $100 million to get that number up from $72 to $77 million. That's $388 million, and they can only defray $100-120 million of that against their current ACC contract. Subscriber fees won't come close to making up the difference.

Also, how much less would that next media deal be worth when thirty games of inventory include Duke, UNC, or Virginia?

South Carolina most played opponents w/ winning %:

Clemson .380

Georgia .263

Carolina .367

NC State .517

Wake .625


I consider a healthy rivalry between the .400-.600 win % range.

It seems State and Wake are more their speed.

(11-04-2025 09:58 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-03-2025 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

Your maths aren't working quite the way they need to.

For backdrop: The SEC just negotiated $5 million per school to add a ninth conference game. That's $80 million that came out of ESPN's pocket.

What you are posting here is a break-even move by the SEC and justifying it by ESPN's best interest. You're talking about a huge shift in the composition of the SEC, so the SEC would need to be compensated accordingly -- not just break even.

(Also, the ACC media payout you cited includes playoff revenue and NCAA Tournament credits which are not included in the projected $72 million media deal for the SEC.)

For each SEC school to make just an additional $5 million, adding four schools would cost ESPN $72 million x 4 four schools = $288 million plus $100 million to get that number up from $72 to $75 million. That's $388 million, and they can only defray $100-120 million of that against their current ACC contract. Subscriber fees won't come close to making up the difference.

Also, how much less would that next media deal be worth when thirty games of inventory include Duke, UNC, or Virginia? Those aren't the

No, I didn't add the 5 million into the equation because frankly the ACC agreed to 9 conference games for a raise as well.

And the math is your issue not mine. ESPN pays the ACC contract and the SEC contract. The difference in what the ACC made this year and what the SEC will make next year is roughly 30 million whether that was 42 - 45 million for the ACC or 72 to 75 million for the SEC. The 5 million more for 9 conference games is roughly a wash as well since both conferences signed up for 9 conference games and more money. 4 x 30 million is 120 million.

Adding Duke and UNC and to a lesser degree Virginia to the SEC's basketball lineup will increase the national audience for that sport as well. The Big Ten with a fat bottom is going to making the same money plus or minus a couple of million. The SEC will have 12 more games with that foursome that add to the national audience numbers for football. They'll have 54 more basketball games that do the same for that revenue sport.

The added academic branding will give the SEC three more AAU members and 3 more increasing its academic standing, and 2 states which combined will be 1 million shy of equaling the adding of another market the size of Florida. Those markets will keep the SEC competitively positioned against the Westward expansion of the Big Ten in terms of market size, which is precisely why the Big Ten would love to add those two schools as well. Picking up FSU cements the SEC's position with regards to Florida delivering that state the same way that Texas and Texas A&M deliver the Lone Star state.

It's been a bit since I worked with the network's subscription figures, but both the SECN and ACCN are paid the same total subscription fee, but one gets a dime more for out of its market footprint subscriptions and a dime less for its in-market subscriptions and each household subscribed represents around a dollar seventy-five per month. If 1/3rd of the public signs up for the ESPN sports package in two states totaling 21 million that's 1.75 x 7 million and that comes to 147 million per year for each. That roughly pays the way for Virginia and for North Carolina just on those measly conference network fees you dismiss so quickly and covers Duke and FSU. And since FSU pays its own way so that leaves the deal maker of Duke in the clear and makes the SEC anything earned by FSU. Virginia Tech, N.C. State and Wake Forest keep the ACCN's fees for Virginia and North Carolina and Virginia, Duke, and North Carolina add them for the SECN and ESPN keeps 50% of the NET profits for both Networks. ESPN wanted in 2011 to add Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC along with Missouri and Texas A&M and that deal fell apart. And that set the ACC back because the same deal would have put them in Texas at the same time. ESPN already double dips Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida for conference network subscriptions. And they covered their difference for out of market subs by adding Cal, Stanford and SMU the last time around.

And while all of this is napkin math subject to specific subscription totals and not an estimation of 1/3rd of households which in the Southeast and Southwest is lowball for sports television estimates based on the viewer saturation numbers for the number of households actually watching games vs the total possible number of households, it's likely close enough to represent the actual process of evaluation. For instance the highest saturation in the nation belongs to Birmingham where about 70% of all households will watch college football on a Saturday.

What you should think about is how sophisticated the valuation system of ESPN or FOX would be, and why they would offer pro rata additions in the first place if the numbers weren't stilted in their favor with regards to market additions which impact their bottom line when commercial revenue is calculated which has nothing to do with winning and losing and everything to do with the actual eyeballs on events.

The issue is not whether North Carolina or Virginia ever win a football game, but rather how many Virginia and North Carolina alumni watch their school's sports on TV. ESPN knows they have a ratings monster in the SEC. They simply want to add two large markets to it and the SEC sees an opportunity to gain national exposure for basketball and academic recognition for the association they would have with its members.

UNC and Duke are massive national brands in basketball. If their fans watch football the way Auburn and Alabama fans watch their schools play basketball it's a winner simply based upon the alumni in the home states. Add in the national brand identification with North Carolina and Duke and you add even more reach into the national audience. Virginia is a solid hoops brand and regional sports brand in an area the SEC reaches, but not nearly as well as they could.

All of this remains Network driven. The schools want more money from their conferences, and the networks suggest which schools they could add which would enhance their revenue. Networks have been giving evaluations of prospective members since the 90's. Pay models have shifted, but no school has been added which didn't enhance the pay model at the time they were added.

Georgia carries 85% of the state of Georgia outside of Atlanta and 52% of Atlanta's DMA. The SEC doesn't require Georgia Tech for dominance there. Florida and Florida State both penetrate the Miami DMA just not enough to unseat Miami's control of it. They overwhelmingly deliver the rest of the state. The SEC has the majority of Kentucky. They have the overwhelming market control in Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri. They have dominant control in Texas and with FSU would have it in Florida. Duke and North Carolina or N.C. State and North Carolina would deliver it in North Carolina. Virginia and Virginia Tech are about a wash but UVa is the Flagship and major academic leader in that state.

At 20 members the SEC would be well served to have added those 4 schools. At 22 it essentially completes its expectations if it adds Clemson to have a dominant position in South Carolina (think a state the size of Alabama with two SEC schools) and adds Kansas, which while not purely Southwestern has figured prominently into their market considerations.

The SEC's interests as have been consistently expressed by its member schools' presidents have been to dominate the markets in the Southeast/Southwest. Adding Virginia, North Carolina Duke and Florida State do that. And ESPN and the SEC wouldn't be speculating about it if the plan wasn't viable. Speculation is designed to acclimate fans to potential coming moves and fill dead airtime between sports seasons. The chatter serves a purpose.

When the SEC added South Carolina after Clemson decided not to pursue an SEC invitation in '91 the idea of expanding into South Carolina was to have a bridge built to North Carolina which when combined with Tennessee, and Georgia would be a lure along with Kentucky's blueblood basketball pedigree for the Tar Heels to take seriously should the time ever come. It seems to have arrived.

Whether you choose to believe the math or not, it's been worked out by folks at FOX and ESPN and is sound enough for the SEC and Big Ten to pursue those 3 schools and Florida State. Geography and the current rights holder being ESPN favor the SEC.

Don't be surprised if it happens.

With your cable numbers, you are counting population, not households. That cuts those numbers in half.

And the SEC already gets a lot of interest in those states. Getting casual viewers around the country is what really drives the numbers. In football, UNC and UVA don't do much for that.

I don't see any way the SEC or Big Ten expand without at least one of FSU, Miami, Clemson or Notre Dame to help pay for the schools they like for academics and markets. I don't think there is any school the Big Ten wants more than Stanford, but nobody would pay for them.

(11-04-2025 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  With your cable numbers, you are counting population, not households. That cuts those numbers in half.

And the SEC already gets a lot of interest in those states. Getting casual viewers around the country is what really drives the numbers. In football, UNC and UVA don't do much for that.

I don't see any way the SEC or Big Ten expand without at least one of FSU, Miami, Clemson or Notre Dame to help pay for the schools they like for academics and markets. I don't think there is any school the Big Ten wants more than Stanford, but nobody would pay for them.

Bullet, nobody is counting cable numbers. They are counting subscriptions of which some still are cable. You pay for ESPN, ESPN+ or the SECN or ACCN through the Hulu Bundle through the Disney plus bundle, or through other services paying for them. There is no free ESPN. And if you get the SECN and ACCN through a package you are paying their basic rates.

As to why they didn't want Stanford, they don't represent all of California. They are private and so carry no dedicated representation. The North is bleeding house seats by census projections. They want state schools because a state school has dedicated representation in Congress where appropriations originate. It's not a blue vs red issue either as each representative will look out for the interest of their state schools and by membership the conferences they are in. The 17 member ACC (sans SMU) made nearly 11 million per school in NET profits from the ACCN. And those NET profits were 50% of the NET which means ESPN made the other half of what the ACC schools put together made. It makes enough money to cover a few tweener adds especially from states of 11 million and 9 million. Both the SECN and ACCN earn 50% of the NET from the conference network with no overhead exposure. That's why they aren't going away. They are the worst bargain for college football because they get the clunker games most of the time, but at least in the SEC even those games can be competitive. What they are a bargain for is SEC/ACC baseball and softball coverage, gymnastics, and some track and field and with the ACC lacrosse and with both some women's soccer. People subscribe to those channels for their conference's sports news, commentary about each week's games, and essentially TV's version of a chat forum if you can stomach Finebaum. They are still with us because they are profitable.

(11-04-2025 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  With your cable numbers, you are counting population, not households. That cuts those numbers in half.

And the SEC already gets a lot of interest in those states. Getting casual viewers around the country is what really drives the numbers. In football, UNC and UVA don't do much for that.

I don't see any way the SEC or Big Ten expand without at least one of FSU, Miami, Clemson or Notre Dame to help pay for the schools they like for academics and markets. I don't think there is any school the Big Ten wants more than Stanford, but nobody would pay for them.

Since Notre Dame seems content and has bribed Clemson to stay put, and Miami isn't going to the B1G alone.........that Florida State/Kansas thing may be the only way forward.
Maybe JR nailed it over a year ago.

(11-04-2025 12:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  With your cable numbers, you are counting population, not households. That cuts those numbers in half.

And the SEC already gets a lot of interest in those states. Getting casual viewers around the country is what really drives the numbers. In football, UNC and UVA don't do much for that.

I don't see any way the SEC or Big Ten expand without at least one of FSU, Miami, Clemson or Notre Dame to help pay for the schools they like for academics and markets. I don't think there is any school the Big Ten wants more than Stanford, but nobody would pay for them.

Since Notre Dame seems content and has bribed Clemson to stay put, and Miami isn't going to the B1G alone.........that Florida State/Kansas thing may be the only way forward.
Maybe JR nailed it over a year ago.

If pleasing fan bases was all that mattered, then those two are a grand slam for ESPN. It does the most to secure SEC interests without harming the ACC. In many ways I hope that angle I was exploring nearly a couple of years ago is proven to be accurate. However, if ESPN has other desires, we may be looking at what is being discussed. Remember they have all of the ACC and SEC now and are playing defense due to FSU and Clemson. The move that would take Duke, FSU, North Carolina and Virginia to the SEC is their best defensive maneuver. If that move allows them to secure USF more completely, add some football branding that benefits Notre Dame's position and gives them access through the ACC to states they wish to reach, and coupled with an SEC scheduling agreement would keep them in place, then that's what ESPN will do.

Offensively if the SEC grew in that way, and ESPN did manage a strong salvage of the ACC then the pressure shifts back to the Big Ten to make their spread offense market strategy work without the benefit of significant Southeastern market presence, nor additional Mid Atlantic market presence. At that point time, the economic disadvantage in branding, the cost of travel, and the pressure from all of it goes to work on them. Unequal revenue sharing would follow and then more issues would arise.

IOW, the best offensive plan for ESPN right now is their best defensive plan.

As a fan of the game, I would love for FSU and Kansas to round out a 18 member SEC giving us the makings for 3 strong divisions of 6 and potentially setting up the 3 division champs and best at large for the conference semi-finals, or as 4 AQs into a larger playoff but keeping the Conference championship game between the top 2 conference schools.

(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance 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.

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.

The SEC as a whole dominates the South, with only Clemson, Miami, FSU and at times GT able to break through in a meaningful way. However, their “break throughs” are generally in games against SEC schools or each other, with ND games being the sole exception. If all we do is grab FSU, Clemson and Miami, then UNC instead of GT as the 4th (or more likely first), any potential, move by the B1G into the South would be costly, foolish, and quite unlikely to be finalized. We completely obliterate the rest of the ACC in ratings, and we’d still obliterate those same schools if some were losing to PSU and Michigan instead of Miami and Clemson in the future. With little ratings upside, the B1G would keep calling ND and sit tight unless and until finally started returning their calls.

My concern is that something like UNC-UVA + FSU-Clemson leaves a Miami-sized door that could pair with Stanford. I don’t care about Miami’s location as much as about that lost opportunity, and the perception by one and all would be that the avg value gained by each Conference would be comparable. Possibly a slight win for the SEC, but we could make it another hammer blow with all 4 of Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

(11-04-2025 01:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance 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.

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.

The SEC as a whole dominates the South, with only Clemson, Miami, FSU and at times GT able to break through in a meaningful way. However, their “break throughs” are generally in games against SEC schools or each other, with ND games being the sole exception. If all we do is grab FSU, Clemson and Miami, then UNC instead of GT as the 4th (or more likely first), any potential, move by the B1G into the South would be costly, foolish, and quite unlikely to be finalized. We completely obliterate the rest of the ACC in ratings, and we’d still obliterate those same schools if some were losing to PSU and Michigan instead of Miami and Clemson in the future. With little ratings upside, the B1G would keep calling ND and sit tight unless and until finally started returning their calls.

My concern is that something like UNC-UVA + FSU-Clemson leaves a Miami-sized door that could pair with Stanford. I don’t care about Miami’s location as much as about that lost opportunity, and the perception by one and all would be that the avg value gained by each Conference would be comparable. Possibly a slight win for the SEC, but we could make it another hammer blow with all 4 of Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

Quit taking board wisdom on Miami and look up their actual numbers. They are behind both North Carolina and Duke in impact. As long as the SEC acquires FSU Miami is an afterthought and does not impact how the markets are utilized in Florida by the SEC or the Big Ten. The Big Ten picks up a DMA of 6.5 million and less than a 20% share in Florida and no dedicated representation.

Miami should be all numbers be a less desirable DMA than San Francisco/Palo Alto and doesn't have the academic standing of Stanford, though Miami is quite sound. Stanford would be the top academic school in the Big Ten the way Duke would be in the SEC.

Make no mistake due to market size and state school status Virginia and North Carolina are the two top prizes in this sweepstakes. Duke as the potential cost of that deal is worth every penny and then some. Big Tenn people know this, SEC presidents know this, SEC fans not so much. Outside of those 3 FSU in the SEC keeps ESPN in control of Florida and finally gives the SEC their control there as well.

Clemson represents a gain of 2.5 million potential viewers and while absolutely another Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee kind of school with a solid SEC profile and a dedicated fan base, fails to earn us what the other four do. At 22 they are in. At 20 they are not.

The SEC wants to dominate the greater Southeast/Southwest. Virginia and North Carolina are very desired toward the completion of that goal. FSU is simply the best remaining get in Florida at this time because they give us control.

Check the numbers I keep in the important threads section of the SEC forum. North Carolina and Virginia help the SEC to counter the market size advantage the Big Ten is trying to amass but also meets our domination of the region strategy and add branding, just not in football, which FSU does add.

Those 4 gives us control of markets totally 43 million (counting FSU's hold on Florida's market) add two basketball top 4 programs and a football national brand, take 4 of the top 6 targets off the board in the Southeast, and leave only 3 million of the Atlanta DMA for the Big Ten and Miami which is a small private delivering 6.5 million from the southernmost end of Florida in a culture heavy in Hispanic influence.

I call that an acceptable risk. Personally, I do not believe the Big Ten will go after Miami and not Stanford, nor do I believe they will find Georgia Tech profitable enough to take. I list them as possible because at least both are easily accessible.

And for a little common sense. The board accepts that the Big Ten earns more than the SEC in media revenue. But the board cries out that the SEC cannot find enough revenue to add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke, when their markets cover their entry. But at the same time, you hate to see Miami and Georgia Tech left to the Big Ten. Well, if they aren't profitable enough for the SEC to take how are they adding enough value to the Big Ten when neither carries a significant market? And how is it that North Carolina and Virginia could add enough for the Big Ten's consideration and not the SEC's? There is a convenient break in logic by posters here who are expressing biases and it infects all parties.

(11-04-2025 11:05 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  South Carolina most played opponents w/ winning %:

Clemson .380

Georgia .263

Carolina .367

NC State .517

Wake .625


I consider a healthy rivalry between the .400-.600 win % range.

It seems State and Wake are more their speed.

LOL the other South Carolina basher. It’s OK to have your hate. It’s your motive that is revealing, obsessive, and ill intent. The good thing is that you two are unconvincing, even for the good folks that are the big majority of North Carolina fans. Will give you this; the Gamecocks lack a Jordon Hudson.

Anyway, I thought you are a Georgia Bulldogs fan now? Let’s salute those Bulldogs!:

(11-04-2025 03:15 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 11:05 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  South Carolina most played opponents w/ winning %:

Clemson .380

Georgia .263

Carolina .367

NC State .517

Wake .625


I consider a healthy rivalry between the .400-.600 win % range.

It seems State and Wake are more their speed.

LOL the other South Carolina basher. It’s OK to have your hate. It’s your motive that is revealing, obsessive, and ill intent. The good thing is that you two are unconvincing, even for the good folks that are the big majority of North Carolina fans. Will give you this; the Gamecocks lack a Jordon Hudson.

I'm just going by the numbers. I would never say ECU is USC's rival. ECU is UNCW's rival! Go Seahawks!

(11-04-2025 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance 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.

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.

The SEC as a whole dominates the South, with only Clemson, Miami, FSU and at times GT able to break through in a meaningful way. However, their “break throughs” are generally in games against SEC schools or each other, with ND games being the sole exception. If all we do is grab FSU, Clemson and Miami, then UNC instead of GT as the 4th (or more likely first), any potential, move by the B1G into the South would be costly, foolish, and quite unlikely to be finalized. We completely obliterate the rest of the ACC in ratings, and we’d still obliterate those same schools if some were losing to PSU and Michigan instead of Miami and Clemson in the future. With little ratings upside, the B1G would keep calling ND and sit tight unless and until finally started returning their calls.

My concern is that something like UNC-UVA + FSU-Clemson leaves a Miami-sized door that could pair with Stanford. I don’t care about Miami’s location as much as about that lost opportunity, and the perception by one and all would be that the avg value gained by each Conference would be comparable. Possibly a slight win for the SEC, but we could make it another hammer blow with all 4 of Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

Quit taking board wisdom on Miami and look up their actual numbers. They are behind both North Carolina and Duke in impact. As long as the SEC acquires FSU Miami is an afterthought and does not impact how the markets are utilized in Florida by the SEC or the Big Ten. The Big Ten picks up a DMA of 6.5 million and less than a 20% share in Florida and no dedicated representation.

Miami should be all numbers be a less desirable DMA than San Francisco/Palo Alto and doesn't have the academic standing of Stanford, though Miami is quite sound. Stanford would be the top academic school in the Big Ten the way Duke would be in the SEC.

Make no mistake due to market size and state school status Virginia and North Carolina are the two top prizes in this sweepstakes. Duke as the potential cost of that deal is worth every penny and then some. Big Tenn people know this, SEC presidents know this, SEC fans not so much. Outside of those 3 FSU in the SEC keeps ESPN in control of Florida and finally gives the SEC their control there as well.

Clemson represents a gain of 2.5 million potential viewers and while absolutely another Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee kind of school with a solid SEC profile and a dedicated fan base, fails to earn us what the other four do. At 22 they are in. At 20 they are not.

The SEC wants to dominate the greater Southeast/Southwest. Virginia and North Carolina are very desired toward the completion of that goal. FSU is simply the best remaining get in Florida at this time because they give us control.

Check the numbers I keep in the important threads section of the SEC forum. North Carolina and Virginia help the SEC to counter the market size advantage the Big Ten is trying to amass but also meets our domination of the region strategy and add branding, just not in football, which FSU does add.

Those 4 gives us control of markets totally 43 million (counting FSU's hold on Florida's market) add two basketball top 4 programs and a football national brand, take 4 of the top 6 targets off the board in the Southeast, and leave only 3 million of the Atlanta DMA for the Big Ten and Miami which is a small private delivering 6.5 million from the southernmost end of Florida in a culture heavy in Hispanic influence.

I call that an acceptable risk. Personally, I do not believe the Big Ten will go after Miami and not Stanford, nor do I believe they will find Georgia Tech profitable enough to take. I list them as possible because at least both are easily accessible.

And for a little common sense. The board accepts that the Big Ten earns more than the SEC in media revenue. But the board cries out that the SEC cannot find enough revenue to add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke, when their markets cover their entry. But at the same time, you hate to see Miami and Georgia Tech left to the Big Ten. Well, if they aren't profitable enough for the SEC to take how are they adding enough value to the Big Ten when neither carries a significant market? And how is it that North Carolina and Virginia could add enough for the Big Ten's consideration and not the SEC's? There is a convenient break in logic by posters here who are expressing biases and it infects all parties.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of Miami, Duke and UVA. We will know soon enough what Sankey and our Presidents believe. If the choice is UVA, I’ll support it and I’ll understand their logic, though I’ll probably wonder if Miami just preferred the B1G. Duke is easier to understand, if we add them then that means that basketball value is on the rise and we’ve decided to dominate that sport, too.

I’ve never questioned if could afford to add UVA. We could add 5 schools from the sunbelt and still make as much per school as the B1G in 2034. It’s not a question of “can we” but rather “should we”. That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. Should we add UNC? Absolutely. Should we add them if they want to make the SEC much more ACC-like by bringing all a couple of their buddies? Well…reasonable people can disagree on that topic, but I’d rather add UNC, Kansas and Colorado for example than UNC, UVA and Duke, and I think the schools I listed would be better in the short term and the long term for the SEC. If we go to 24 or 28, we’ll, then UVA and Duke make a whole lot more sense, but they’d be part of a larger grouping rather than 2 critical components.

(11-04-2025 06:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance 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.

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.

The SEC as a whole dominates the South, with only Clemson, Miami, FSU and at times GT able to break through in a meaningful way. However, their “break throughs” are generally in games against SEC schools or each other, with ND games being the sole exception. If all we do is grab FSU, Clemson and Miami, then UNC instead of GT as the 4th (or more likely first), any potential, move by the B1G into the South would be costly, foolish, and quite unlikely to be finalized. We completely obliterate the rest of the ACC in ratings, and we’d still obliterate those same schools if some were losing to PSU and Michigan instead of Miami and Clemson in the future. With little ratings upside, the B1G would keep calling ND and sit tight unless and until finally started returning their calls.

My concern is that something like UNC-UVA + FSU-Clemson leaves a Miami-sized door that could pair with Stanford. I don’t care about Miami’s location as much as about that lost opportunity, and the perception by one and all would be that the avg value gained by each Conference would be comparable. Possibly a slight win for the SEC, but we could make it another hammer blow with all 4 of Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

Quit taking board wisdom on Miami and look up their actual numbers. They are behind both North Carolina and Duke in impact. As long as the SEC acquires FSU Miami is an afterthought and does not impact how the markets are utilized in Florida by the SEC or the Big Ten. The Big Ten picks up a DMA of 6.5 million and less than a 20% share in Florida and no dedicated representation.

Miami should be all numbers be a less desirable DMA than San Francisco/Palo Alto and doesn't have the academic standing of Stanford, though Miami is quite sound. Stanford would be the top academic school in the Big Ten the way Duke would be in the SEC.

Make no mistake due to market size and state school status Virginia and North Carolina are the two top prizes in this sweepstakes. Duke as the potential cost of that deal is worth every penny and then some. Big Tenn people know this, SEC presidents know this, SEC fans not so much. Outside of those 3 FSU in the SEC keeps ESPN in control of Florida and finally gives the SEC their control there as well.

Clemson represents a gain of 2.5 million potential viewers and while absolutely another Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee kind of school with a solid SEC profile and a dedicated fan base, fails to earn us what the other four do. At 22 they are in. At 20 they are not.

The SEC wants to dominate the greater Southeast/Southwest. Virginia and North Carolina are very desired toward the completion of that goal. FSU is simply the best remaining get in Florida at this time because they give us control.

Check the numbers I keep in the important threads section of the SEC forum. North Carolina and Virginia help the SEC to counter the market size advantage the Big Ten is trying to amass but also meets our domination of the region strategy and add branding, just not in football, which FSU does add.

Those 4 gives us control of markets totally 43 million (counting FSU's hold on Florida's market) add two basketball top 4 programs and a football national brand, take 4 of the top 6 targets off the board in the Southeast, and leave only 3 million of the Atlanta DMA for the Big Ten and Miami which is a small private delivering 6.5 million from the southernmost end of Florida in a culture heavy in Hispanic influence.

I call that an acceptable risk. Personally, I do not believe the Big Ten will go after Miami and not Stanford, nor do I believe they will find Georgia Tech profitable enough to take. I list them as possible because at least both are easily accessible.

And for a little common sense. The board accepts that the Big Ten earns more than the SEC in media revenue. But the board cries out that the SEC cannot find enough revenue to add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke, when their markets cover their entry. But at the same time, you hate to see Miami and Georgia Tech left to the Big Ten. Well, if they aren't profitable enough for the SEC to take how are they adding enough value to the Big Ten when neither carries a significant market? And how is it that North Carolina and Virginia could add enough for the Big Ten's consideration and not the SEC's? There is a convenient break in logic by posters here who are expressing biases and it infects all parties.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of Miami, Duke and UVA. We will know soon enough what Sankey and our Presidents believe. If the choice is UVA, I’ll support it and I’ll understand their logic, though I’ll probably wonder if Miami just preferred the B1G. Duke is easier to understand, if we add them then that means that basketball value is on the rise and we’ve decided to dominate that sport, too.

I’ve never questioned if could afford to add UVA. We could add 5 schools from the sunbelt and still make as much per school as the B1G in 2034. It’s not a question of “can we” but rather “should we”. That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. Should we add UNC? Absolutely. Should we add them if they want to make the SEC much more ACC-like by bringing all a couple of their buddies? Well…reasonable people can disagree on that topic, but I’d rather add UNC, Kansas and Colorado for example than UNC, UVA and Duke, and I think the schools I listed would be better in the short term and the long term for the SEC. If we go to 24 or 28, we’ll, then UVA and Duke make a whole lot more sense, but they’d be part of a larger grouping rather than 2 critical components.

I've never been a proponent of agreeing to disagree. It's too passive. Somebody is going to be right and someone wrong. Owning your position is a mark of integrity. That said one of my pet peeves in realignment has been, and will continue to be, that unless you bring the programs along that the define the program you want, you are likely to screw up and lose value instead of gaining it. Had the Big Ten added Oklahoma with Nebraska would the Huskers be in the fix they are in currently? It's possible, but they defined one another as surely as Texas and Oklahoma define one another, or Texas and Texas A&M define one another.

If you want North Carolina basketball to be worth what it currently is worth then pairing them with Duke is the best way to make sure you retain the value you think you are adding when you add them. I could argue for Virginia here as well, but in the end they will be a market add that has some synergy with North Carolina and Duke.

Florida State doesn't lack that synergy at all in the SEC. They have the Gators, they hate the Dawgs, have had history with Auburn outside of the national championship game in 2013, and if they could continue to schedule Clemson as an OOC game they don't they don't lose their identity making games. In that regard they are a healthier addition for the SEC than Miami.

Twenty-two would be Clemson and Kansas I think. At 24 you have Miami and Virginia Tech.

If you put me to the question as things stand now I don't see much merit in going to 24 if at 22 you get Kansas (completing the sweep of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time) and Clemson. I think that's as good as it gets. Miami may be in the ACC and previously in the Big East, but they have no other program that defines them. If they keep OOC games with UF and FSU that's as good as it gets and likely all the SEC needs of them.

If we land Duke, Florida State, North Carolina and Virginia it will remind me of an old Rock song, "No where to run to Baby, nowhere to hide!" The SEC dominance in this nations top 3 sports will be massive. Remember Sankey and the Presidents set a new goal when he became commissioner, total sports dominance. That's where this is headed. And if you pick up Duke, UNC and UVa you get all of the synergy that goes with them. If they keep OOC games in basketball with N.C. State and Wake Forest and Virginia Tech that's good enough.

(11-04-2025 07:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 06:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 05:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  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.

The SEC as a whole dominates the South, with only Clemson, Miami, FSU and at times GT able to break through in a meaningful way. However, their “break throughs” are generally in games against SEC schools or each other, with ND games being the sole exception. If all we do is grab FSU, Clemson and Miami, then UNC instead of GT as the 4th (or more likely first), any potential, move by the B1G into the South would be costly, foolish, and quite unlikely to be finalized. We completely obliterate the rest of the ACC in ratings, and we’d still obliterate those same schools if some were losing to PSU and Michigan instead of Miami and Clemson in the future. With little ratings upside, the B1G would keep calling ND and sit tight unless and until finally started returning their calls.

My concern is that something like UNC-UVA + FSU-Clemson leaves a Miami-sized door that could pair with Stanford. I don’t care about Miami’s location as much as about that lost opportunity, and the perception by one and all would be that the avg value gained by each Conference would be comparable. Possibly a slight win for the SEC, but we could make it another hammer blow with all 4 of Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

Quit taking board wisdom on Miami and look up their actual numbers. They are behind both North Carolina and Duke in impact. As long as the SEC acquires FSU Miami is an afterthought and does not impact how the markets are utilized in Florida by the SEC or the Big Ten. The Big Ten picks up a DMA of 6.5 million and less than a 20% share in Florida and no dedicated representation.

Miami should be all numbers be a less desirable DMA than San Francisco/Palo Alto and doesn't have the academic standing of Stanford, though Miami is quite sound. Stanford would be the top academic school in the Big Ten the way Duke would be in the SEC.

Make no mistake due to market size and state school status Virginia and North Carolina are the two top prizes in this sweepstakes. Duke as the potential cost of that deal is worth every penny and then some. Big Tenn people know this, SEC presidents know this, SEC fans not so much. Outside of those 3 FSU in the SEC keeps ESPN in control of Florida and finally gives the SEC their control there as well.

Clemson represents a gain of 2.5 million potential viewers and while absolutely another Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee kind of school with a solid SEC profile and a dedicated fan base, fails to earn us what the other four do. At 22 they are in. At 20 they are not.

The SEC wants to dominate the greater Southeast/Southwest. Virginia and North Carolina are very desired toward the completion of that goal. FSU is simply the best remaining get in Florida at this time because they give us control.

Check the numbers I keep in the important threads section of the SEC forum. North Carolina and Virginia help the SEC to counter the market size advantage the Big Ten is trying to amass but also meets our domination of the region strategy and add branding, just not in football, which FSU does add.

Those 4 gives us control of markets totally 43 million (counting FSU's hold on Florida's market) add two basketball top 4 programs and a football national brand, take 4 of the top 6 targets off the board in the Southeast, and leave only 3 million of the Atlanta DMA for the Big Ten and Miami which is a small private delivering 6.5 million from the southernmost end of Florida in a culture heavy in Hispanic influence.

I call that an acceptable risk. Personally, I do not believe the Big Ten will go after Miami and not Stanford, nor do I believe they will find Georgia Tech profitable enough to take. I list them as possible because at least both are easily accessible.

And for a little common sense. The board accepts that the Big Ten earns more than the SEC in media revenue. But the board cries out that the SEC cannot find enough revenue to add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke, when their markets cover their entry. But at the same time, you hate to see Miami and Georgia Tech left to the Big Ten. Well, if they aren't profitable enough for the SEC to take how are they adding enough value to the Big Ten when neither carries a significant market? And how is it that North Carolina and Virginia could add enough for the Big Ten's consideration and not the SEC's? There is a convenient break in logic by posters here who are expressing biases and it infects all parties.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of Miami, Duke and UVA. We will know soon enough what Sankey and our Presidents believe. If the choice is UVA, I’ll support it and I’ll understand their logic, though I’ll probably wonder if Miami just preferred the B1G. Duke is easier to understand, if we add them then that means that basketball value is on the rise and we’ve decided to dominate that sport, too.

I’ve never questioned if could afford to add UVA. We could add 5 schools from the sunbelt and still make as much per school as the B1G in 2034. It’s not a question of “can we” but rather “should we”. That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. Should we add UNC? Absolutely. Should we add them if they want to make the SEC much more ACC-like by bringing all a couple of their buddies? Well…reasonable people can disagree on that topic, but I’d rather add UNC, Kansas and Colorado for example than UNC, UVA and Duke, and I think the schools I listed would be better in the short term and the long term for the SEC. If we go to 24 or 28, we’ll, then UVA and Duke make a whole lot more sense, but they’d be part of a larger grouping rather than 2 critical components.

I've never been a proponent of agreeing to disagree. It's too passive. Somebody is going to be right and someone wrong. Owning your position is a mark of integrity. That said one of my pet peeves in realignment has been, and will continue to be, that unless you bring the programs along that the define the program you want, you are likely to screw up and lose value instead of gaining it. Had the Big Ten added Oklahoma with Nebraska would the Huskers be in the fix they are in currently? It's possible, but they defined one another as surely as Texas and Oklahoma define one another, or Texas and Texas A&M define one another.

If you want North Carolina basketball to be worth what it currently is worth then pairing them with Duke is the best way to make sure you retain the value you think you are adding when you add them. I could argue for Virginia here as well, but in the end they will be a market add that has some synergy with North Carolina and Duke.

Florida State doesn't lack that synergy at all in the SEC. They have the Gators, they hate the Dawgs, have had history with Auburn outside of the national championship game in 2013, and if they could continue to schedule Clemson as an OOC game they don't they don't lose their identity making games. In that regard they are a healthier addition for the SEC than Miami.

Twenty-two would be Clemson and Kansas I think. At 24 you have Miami and Virginia Tech.

If you put me to the question as things stand now I don't see much merit in going to 24 if at 22 you get Kansas (completing the sweep of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time) and Clemson. I think that's as good as it gets. Miami may be in the ACC and previously in the Big East, but they have no other program that defines them. If they keep OOC games with UF and FSU that's as good as it gets and likely all the SEC needs of them.

If we land Duke, Florida State, North Carolina and Virginia it will remind me of an old Rock song, "No where to run to Baby, nowhere to hide!" The SEC dominance in this nations top 3 sports will be massive. Remember Sankey and the Presidents set a new goal when he became commissioner, total sports dominance. That's where this is headed. And if you pick up Duke, UNC and UVa you get all of the synergy that goes with them. If they keep OOC games in basketball with N.C. State and Wake Forest and Virginia Tech that's good enough.

If you go beyond 20, you limit yourself to playing a lot of schools only every 3rd year, unless you limit yourself to 1 every year rival, but that just doesn't work in the SEC.

I think that takes a lot of value to justify giving up a lot of brand vs. brand games.

(11-04-2025 07:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 07:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 06:53 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 01:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The SEC as a whole dominates the South, with only Clemson, Miami, FSU and at times GT able to break through in a meaningful way. However, their “break throughs” are generally in games against SEC schools or each other, with ND games being the sole exception. If all we do is grab FSU, Clemson and Miami, then UNC instead of GT as the 4th (or more likely first), any potential, move by the B1G into the South would be costly, foolish, and quite unlikely to be finalized. We completely obliterate the rest of the ACC in ratings, and we’d still obliterate those same schools if some were losing to PSU and Michigan instead of Miami and Clemson in the future. With little ratings upside, the B1G would keep calling ND and sit tight unless and until finally started returning their calls.

My concern is that something like UNC-UVA + FSU-Clemson leaves a Miami-sized door that could pair with Stanford. I don’t care about Miami’s location as much as about that lost opportunity, and the perception by one and all would be that the avg value gained by each Conference would be comparable. Possibly a slight win for the SEC, but we could make it another hammer blow with all 4 of Miami, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

Quit taking board wisdom on Miami and look up their actual numbers. They are behind both North Carolina and Duke in impact. As long as the SEC acquires FSU Miami is an afterthought and does not impact how the markets are utilized in Florida by the SEC or the Big Ten. The Big Ten picks up a DMA of 6.5 million and less than a 20% share in Florida and no dedicated representation.

Miami should be all numbers be a less desirable DMA than San Francisco/Palo Alto and doesn't have the academic standing of Stanford, though Miami is quite sound. Stanford would be the top academic school in the Big Ten the way Duke would be in the SEC.

Make no mistake due to market size and state school status Virginia and North Carolina are the two top prizes in this sweepstakes. Duke as the potential cost of that deal is worth every penny and then some. Big Tenn people know this, SEC presidents know this, SEC fans not so much. Outside of those 3 FSU in the SEC keeps ESPN in control of Florida and finally gives the SEC their control there as well.

Clemson represents a gain of 2.5 million potential viewers and while absolutely another Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee kind of school with a solid SEC profile and a dedicated fan base, fails to earn us what the other four do. At 22 they are in. At 20 they are not.

The SEC wants to dominate the greater Southeast/Southwest. Virginia and North Carolina are very desired toward the completion of that goal. FSU is simply the best remaining get in Florida at this time because they give us control.

Check the numbers I keep in the important threads section of the SEC forum. North Carolina and Virginia help the SEC to counter the market size advantage the Big Ten is trying to amass but also meets our domination of the region strategy and add branding, just not in football, which FSU does add.

Those 4 gives us control of markets totally 43 million (counting FSU's hold on Florida's market) add two basketball top 4 programs and a football national brand, take 4 of the top 6 targets off the board in the Southeast, and leave only 3 million of the Atlanta DMA for the Big Ten and Miami which is a small private delivering 6.5 million from the southernmost end of Florida in a culture heavy in Hispanic influence.

I call that an acceptable risk. Personally, I do not believe the Big Ten will go after Miami and not Stanford, nor do I believe they will find Georgia Tech profitable enough to take. I list them as possible because at least both are easily accessible.

And for a little common sense. The board accepts that the Big Ten earns more than the SEC in media revenue. But the board cries out that the SEC cannot find enough revenue to add Virginia, North Carolina, or Duke, when their markets cover their entry. But at the same time, you hate to see Miami and Georgia Tech left to the Big Ten. Well, if they aren't profitable enough for the SEC to take how are they adding enough value to the Big Ten when neither carries a significant market? And how is it that North Carolina and Virginia could add enough for the Big Ten's consideration and not the SEC's? There is a convenient break in logic by posters here who are expressing biases and it infects all parties.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of Miami, Duke and UVA. We will know soon enough what Sankey and our Presidents believe. If the choice is UVA, I’ll support it and I’ll understand their logic, though I’ll probably wonder if Miami just preferred the B1G. Duke is easier to understand, if we add them then that means that basketball value is on the rise and we’ve decided to dominate that sport, too.

I’ve never questioned if could afford to add UVA. We could add 5 schools from the sunbelt and still make as much per school as the B1G in 2034. It’s not a question of “can we” but rather “should we”. That’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. Should we add UNC? Absolutely. Should we add them if they want to make the SEC much more ACC-like by bringing all a couple of their buddies? Well…reasonable people can disagree on that topic, but I’d rather add UNC, Kansas and Colorado for example than UNC, UVA and Duke, and I think the schools I listed would be better in the short term and the long term for the SEC. If we go to 24 or 28, we’ll, then UVA and Duke make a whole lot more sense, but they’d be part of a larger grouping rather than 2 critical components.

I've never been a proponent of agreeing to disagree. It's too passive. Somebody is going to be right and someone wrong. Owning your position is a mark of integrity. That said one of my pet peeves in realignment has been, and will continue to be, that unless you bring the programs along that the define the program you want, you are likely to screw up and lose value instead of gaining it. Had the Big Ten added Oklahoma with Nebraska would the Huskers be in the fix they are in currently? It's possible, but they defined one another as surely as Texas and Oklahoma define one another, or Texas and Texas A&M define one another.

If you want North Carolina basketball to be worth what it currently is worth then pairing them with Duke is the best way to make sure you retain the value you think you are adding when you add them. I could argue for Virginia here as well, but in the end they will be a market add that has some synergy with North Carolina and Duke.

Florida State doesn't lack that synergy at all in the SEC. They have the Gators, they hate the Dawgs, have had history with Auburn outside of the national championship game in 2013, and if they could continue to schedule Clemson as an OOC game they don't they don't lose their identity making games. In that regard they are a healthier addition for the SEC than Miami.

Twenty-two would be Clemson and Kansas I think. At 24 you have Miami and Virginia Tech.

If you put me to the question as things stand now I don't see much merit in going to 24 if at 22 you get Kansas (completing the sweep of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time) and Clemson. I think that's as good as it gets. Miami may be in the ACC and previously in the Big East, but they have no other program that defines them. If they keep OOC games with UF and FSU that's as good as it gets and likely all the SEC needs of them.

If we land Duke, Florida State, North Carolina and Virginia it will remind me of an old Rock song, "No where to run to Baby, nowhere to hide!" The SEC dominance in this nations top 3 sports will be massive. Remember Sankey and the Presidents set a new goal when he became commissioner, total sports dominance. That's where this is headed. And if you pick up Duke, UNC and UVa you get all of the synergy that goes with them. If they keep OOC games in basketball with N.C. State and Wake Forest and Virginia Tech that's good enough.

If you go beyond 20, you limit yourself to playing a lot of schools only every 3rd year, unless you limit yourself to 1 every year rival, but that just doesn't work in the SEC.

I think that takes a lot of value to justify giving up a lot of brand vs. brand games.

Twenty is fine. And if three are Duke, UNC and UVa there is zero chance of them changing the culture or direction of the SEC even if they cozy up with Texas. That's 4 votes out of 20 and not enough to alter what the majority wants. I think they would be fine, would add 21 million in market and paired with FSU would cover all of the bases for advertising revenue we need to cover.

Where I would differ from you a tad would be at 22. Clemson and Kansas would finish the conference out nicely and if you discount the school looking at its schedule 21 can be played every 3 years while keeping 9 conference games with 2 being rivals. If you need 3 rivalry games play 10 conference games.

(11-04-2025 11:05 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  South Carolina most played opponents w/ winning %:

Clemson .380

Georgia .263

Carolina .367

NC State .517

Wake .625


I consider a healthy rivalry between the .400-.600 win % range.

It seems State and Wake are more their speed.

Using that logic, I guess unc isn't our speed...not even close. .277 against us, the last 18 years. 0-fer, the last 4. That's no head-scratcher.
Fact is, South Carolina is in the SEC, and you are not. And I don't think you guys are nearly as attractive as before.

(11-04-2025 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Adding Duke and UNC and to a lesser degree Virginia to the SEC's basketball lineup will increase the national audience for that sport as well. The Big Ten with a fat bottom is going to making the same money plus or minus a couple of million. The SEC will have 12 more games with that foursome that add to the national audience numbers for football. They'll have 54 more basketball games that do the same for that revenue sport.

We might be talking across each other right now rather than to each other:

Are you saying that -- revenues being exactly equal going forward -- the sixteen member institutions of the SEC would prefer to be in a conference with Duke, UNC, and UVa than not?

I personally don't believe (1) that those revenues would be equal, or (2) that the SEC would prefer to be at twenty than to remain at sixteen.

(11-04-2025 08:49 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Adding Duke and UNC and to a lesser degree Virginia to the SEC's basketball lineup will increase the national audience for that sport as well. The Big Ten with a fat bottom is going to making the same money plus or minus a couple of million. The SEC will have 12 more games with that foursome that add to the national audience numbers for football. They'll have 54 more basketball games that do the same for that revenue sport.

We might be talking across each other right now rather than to each other:

Are you saying that -- revenues being exactly equal going forward -- the sixteen member institutions of the SEC would prefer to be in a conference with Duke, UNC, and UVa than not?

I personally don't believe (1) that those revenues would be equal, or (2) that the SEC would prefer to be at twenty than to remain at sixteen.

I agree. I think FSU and Clemson are too much more valuable for a national audience. Now while Miami beats Duke, UNC and UVA, the SEC may prefer markets to a 3rd school in Florida and leave the Hurricanes for the Big Ten to pick up. I don't see the SEC leaving a recruiting competitor and national championship contender in FSU and Clemson behind. Miami recruits a little differently and, at least in recent years, has lagged FSU and Clemson in TV appeal. But they still blow away the rest of the ACC.