(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo. Then there’s the appeal of matchups like Clemson-Alabama, Clemson-South Carolina, Clemson-UNC, Clemson-Florida State and Clemson-Georgia all being conference games. Maybe Clemson-Miami as well?

Factor in that draw and the above is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo.

Factor in that draw and this is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

I would not argue against it. At 20 choices have to made. The Clemson argument is simply not quite as compelling. At 22 I think the SEC could really lock things down with Clemson to the East and Kansas to the West. But remember this. If the goal is for the ACC to survive post the departure of these 4 schools then Clemson has a much easier annual path for that CFP slot from the ACC.

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo.

Factor in that draw and this is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

And a mid tier SEC addition is top 20 nationally. In attendance, Clemson is 14th nationally, right between Oklahoma and Notre Dame. They draw more in attendance than FSU and more than UNC and Duke combined. In the Sic-Em TV analysis for 2013-21, Clemson was #10. They drew 10.45 million vs. LSU in week 1, only slightly less than FSU-Alabama and Miami-Notre Dame, both games with bigger draws than LSU. All 3 games were on ABC.

(11-04-2025 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo.

Factor in that draw and this is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

I would not argue against it. At 20 choices have to made. The Clemson argument is simply not quite as compelling. At 22 I think the SEC could really lock things down with Clemson to the East and Kansas to the West. But remember this. If the goal is for the ACC to survive post the departure of these 4 schools then Clemson has a much easier annual path for that CFP slot from the ACC.

In its current iteration, the ACC could not even send an undefeated team to the playoff. Losing 2-8 teams is not going to make the ACC a viable conference. Let's use your scenario (IMO the math does not add up like someone else said).

The SEC adds (no one is staying in the ACC if the SEC does this):

Duke
UNC
UVA
Kansas
Florida State
Miami

This 100% makes the SEC a worse conference than it already is. All of those teams are going to struggle to b 6-6 most years. Basketball MIGHT be better, but $$$$ matters more than brand names in the NIL era. But does this even keep the Big 10 out? No.

The Big 10 adds:

Clemson
Georgia Tech
NC State
Cal

So what even is the point in adding that much bloat to the SEC? Realistically, the SEC has to add EIGHT teams to keep the Big 10 out of the south. And even then, it's still not a given because 10 years from now, USF and UCF could be the next hot commodities.

(11-04-2025 11:32 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 08:49 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo.

Factor in that draw and this is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

I would not argue against it. At 20 choices have to made. The Clemson argument is simply not quite as compelling. At 22 I think the SEC could really lock things down with Clemson to the East and Kansas to the West. But remember this. If the goal is for the ACC to survive post the departure of these 4 schools then Clemson has a much easier annual path for that CFP slot from the ACC.

In its current iteration, the ACC could not even send an undefeated team to the playoff. Losing 2-8 teams is not going to make the ACC a viable conference. Let's use your scenario (IMO the math does not add up like someone else said).

The SEC adds (no one is staying in the ACC if the SEC does this):

Duke
UNC
UVA
Kansas
Florida State
Miami

This 100% makes the SEC a worse conference than it already is. All of those teams are going to struggle to b 6-6 most years. Basketball MIGHT be better, but $$$$ matters more than brand names in the NIL era. But does this even keep the Big 10 out? No.

The Big 10 adds:

Clemson
Georgia Tech
NC State
Cal

So what even is the point in adding that much bloat to the SEC? Realistically, the SEC has to add EIGHT teams to keep the Big 10 out of the south. And even then, it's still not a given because 10 years from now, USF and UCF could be the next hot commodities.

As I've already said, the markets alone in Virginia and North Carolina cover their additions. FSU takes care of itself.

The whole point is the Big Ten won't add Clemson and N.C. State. Doubt they add Cal. Do think they would consider Miami, but 3 million in Atlanta won't cover Ga Tech either.

The math is only in error on your part. FSU, UVa and UNC pay for themselves the first with their added # of games over 6 million in viewers and by delivering the controlling portion of the state of Florida.

There is only one brand that adds significantly, Notre Dame. If the Big Ten can't land them they may be done at 18. Remove the 3 top AAU schools from the ACC and their markets, and the best remaining football brand with a sizeable market and there's nothing there for you.

You know math doesn't fail. Those states added to the SECN cover them and leave a profit that each will contribute 3.5 million per school to the SEC. Duke will add hoops value and ESPN has accounted for some pro rata additions if necessary. Factor in what FSU delivers and it's a bump, which is all it needs to be.

Are you two guys going to tell me how adding 3 brands and a strong regional brand with a goodly sized market won't pay because they are weak in football, and they will devalue the SEC in spite of bringing in more moeny and make that claim when the bottom 8 of the Big 10 are worse?

Good luck with that!

There sure is a lot of dissention about adding several schools to the SEC that really don't want to be in that league.

I've been hesitant about GT to the big10, mostly because of their past and current ties to the SEC.

But reading the back-n-forth here, is reducing my hesitancy. Whether dismissing them due to on-the-field reasons, or due to not getting as much of the local market as the University of Georgia - those are both SEC-specific concerns.

For the Big10, adding GT, adds a top academic school that broadens the big10 into the state.

Adding Duke, GT, and Miami, would be a win. And the 4th could be Virginia, Kansas, or 1 of the 4Cs.

And the interesting thing is, it's pretty obvious that - NONE of those schools would be a first choice for the SEC.

So I think the big10 could probably get them free and clear, pretty easily.

Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools. Has that changed? FSU and Clemson filed the lawsuits, and paid the legal costs, to have the option to leave the ACC with more reasonable exit criteria. UNC perched on the fence about it. The others stood back fearing the risks without any assurances from elsewhere.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, partial Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, weren’t in that pool. They saw themselves as not being of interest by either P2 conference, or there was no desire to leave the ACC.

The ACC added SMU, Cal, and Stanford, who did not have any interest from the P2 at the time.

I believe the SEC knows which schools, assuming four them they were target for adding. I also believe those four. (or whatever number.) know where they stand as communicated to each privately by the SEC. By comparison, the BIG may be more ambiguous who they would add, and their top priority would still be adding Notre Dame who continues to refuse, publicly, that they have no desire to join a conference for football competition.

The SEC and ESPN, are really holding the cards for any near future movement and expansion. They are not in a hurry. But they certainly have a plan.

(11-05-2025 04:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools. Has that changed? FSU and Clemson filed the lawsuits, and paid the legal costs, to have the option to leave the ACC with more reasonable exit criteria. Just yell at me if you need me for anythingUNC perched on the fence about it. The others stood back fearing the risks without any assurances from elsewhere.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, partial Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, weren’t in that pool. They saw themselves as not being of interest by either P2 conference, or there was no desire to leave the ACC.

The ACC added SMU, Cal, and Stanford, who did not have any interest from the P2 at the time.

I believe the SEC knows which schools, assuming four them they were target for Adden. I also believe those four. (or whatever number.) know where they stand as communicated to each privately. By comparison, the BIG may be more ambiguous who they would add, and their top priority would still be adding Notre Dame who continues to refuse publicly, they have no desire to join a conference for football competition.

The SEC and ESPN, a really holding the cards for any near future movement and expansion. They are not in a hurry. But they certainly have a plan.

Just as a parenthetical: We don’t really know that the Magnificent Seven were the only ACC members looking critically at the league’s grant of rights. That’s a pretty likely bet, but what we really know is that these 7 schools were those that allowed their identities to be leaked in a public list posted by Brett McMurphy.

It was big news at the time in the normally genteel ACC. Seven was half the conference membership then. It was a bold move by the schools, and the first repudiation of the notion that revenue gap concerns were the isolated hang-up of one or two ‘malcontents’. (That scratched-up Golden Oldie still gets played, though, as we know.)

(11-05-2025 04:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools. Has that changed? FSU and Clemson filed the lawsuits, and paid the legal costs, to have the option to leave the ACC with more reasonable exit criteria. Just yell at me if you need me for anythingUNC perched on the fence about it. The others stood back fearing the risks without any assurances from elsewhere.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, partial Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, weren’t in that pool. They saw themselves as not being of interest by either P2 conference, or there was no desire to leave the ACC.

The ACC added SMU, Cal, and Stanford, who did not have any interest from the P2 at the time.

I believe the SEC knows which schools, assuming four them they were target for Adden. I also believe those four. (or whatever number.) know where they stand as communicated to each privately. By comparison, the BIG may be more ambiguous who they would add, and their top priority would still be adding Notre Dame who continues to refuse publicly, they have no desire to join a conference for football competition.

The SEC and ESPN, a really holding the cards for any near future movement and expansion. They are not in a hurry. But they certainly have a plan.

And it's the national public that controls ESPN, owned by Disney; neither in a good financial position. That's what renegotiates and breaks contracts.
Consider just what's happened in college football, the last couple of years, NIL, portal, $50M firings... Follow the money.

(11-05-2025 05:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  There sure is a lot of dissention about adding several schools to the SEC that really don't want to be in that league.

All along, I've realistically seen NC State and VT in the 2nd tier of P2 desirability; among a large ACC group exit. I'd prefer they join us in the B1G, which could use the football and markets. Nobody checks all blocks.
I dunno if that's dissention or not.

(11-05-2025 05:02 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 04:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools. Has that changed? FSU and Clemson filed the lawsuits, and paid the legal costs, to have the option to leave the ACC with more reasonable exit criteria. Just yell at me if you need me for anythingUNC perched on the fence about it. The others stood back fearing the risks without any assurances from elsewhere.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, partial Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, weren’t in that pool. They saw themselves as not being of interest by either P2 conference, or there was no desire to leave the ACC.

The ACC added SMU, Cal, and Stanford, who did not have any interest from the P2 at the time.

I believe the SEC knows which schools, assuming four them they were target for Adden. I also believe those four. (or whatever number.) know where they stand as communicated to each privately. By comparison, the BIG may be more ambiguous who they would add, and their top priority would still be adding Notre Dame who continues to refuse publicly, they have no desire to join a conference for football competition.

The SEC and ESPN, a really holding the cards for any near future movement and expansion. They are not in a hurry. But they certainly have a plan.

Just as a parenthetical: We don’t really know that the Magnificent Seven were the only ACC members looking critically at the league’s grant of rights. That’s a pretty likely bet, but what we really know is that these 7 schools were those that allowed their identities to be leaked in a public list posted by Brett McMurphy.

It was big news at the time in the normally genteel ACC. Seven was half the conference membership then. It was a bold move by the schools, and the first repudiation of the notion that revenue gap concerns were the isolated hang-up of one or two ‘malcontents’. (That scratched-up Golden Oldie still gets played, though, as we know.)

My post got chopped up. I had the voice mic (I got tremors) on the iPhone with the TV in the background. I had to chat with the plumber who is doing work under the house. I made the corrections above, I hope. Anyway, I get these pop-ups that interfered with an earlier correction. Anyway, you are fast like JRsec, but his responses are usually longer.

(11-05-2025 05:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  There sure is a lot of dissention about adding several schools to the SEC that really don't want to be in that league.

Every ACC school will accept a P2 bid in a heartbeat, Notre Dame excepted.

(11-05-2025 05:25 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 05:39 AM)XLance Wrote:  There sure is a lot of dissention about adding several schools to the SEC that really don't want to be in that league.

Every ACC school will accept a P2 bid in a heartbeat, Notre Dame excepted.

Yep, that's why the strategy game is in taking those worth taking first to discourage your competition from trying to survive on lesser brands that remain available.

As long as ESPN wants the ACC as a home for all of the Irish's other sports besides football, the game is going to be for ESPN at least, how best to shelter the brands who would get and take a P2 invitation into the P2 conference that ESPN retains rights to.

Incentivizing the SEC won't be hard. Disincentivizing the Big Ten won't be easy. But Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia gets that first step done. FSU will be with them just by the numbers alone.

Then the gamble is whether or not Clemson and Miami will remain immune to Big Ten advances due to academics in the first case, and due to the private small AAU school which only delivers a DMA in the case of the latter. I just don't see how 3 million in Atlanta will be of much use to the Big Ten. ESPN doesn't lose control of Florida if they lose Miami. What they might lose is the ability to rebuild a viable ACC if Miami leaves and they are forced to protect Clemson in the SEC.

At that point do they take it to 24? Va Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, & Kansas? It is the only way they could keep their dominance South of Virginia and lock down what they wanted to hold out of the old Big 12.

I believe that may be too much carnage for them to hang viably onto Notre Dame without the SEC offering shelter. I don't see Notre Dame wanting that. Perhaps back to the Big East, Hockey in the Big Ten, and a bigger scheduling agreement with the SEC and former ACC schools now relegated to a kind of diaspora which may or may not involve the Big 12.

I would give Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and FSU to the SEC a 65% chance of stopping any Big Ten movement. Why? The schools the SEC takes would be worth more than those the Big Ten could then acquire.

We'll see. That part of realignment poker will be fascinating to watch get played out.

(11-05-2025 04:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools. Has that changed? FSU and Clemson filed the lawsuits, and paid the legal costs, to have the option to leave the ACC with more reasonable exit criteria. UNC perched on the fence about it. The others stood back fearing the risks without any assurances from elsewhere.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, partial Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, weren’t in that pool. They saw themselves as not being of interest by either P2 conference, or there was no desire to leave the ACC.

The ACC added SMU, Cal, and Stanford, who did not have any interest from the P2 at the time.

I believe the SEC knows which schools, assuming four them they were target for adding. I also believe those four. (or whatever number.) know where they stand as communicated to each privately by the SEC. By comparison, the BIG may be more ambiguous who they would add, and their top priority would still be adding Notre Dame who continues to refuse, publicly, that they have no desire to join a conference for football competition.

The SEC and ESPN, are really holding the cards for any near future movement and expansion. They are not in a hurry. But they certainly have a plan.

McMurphy said ND was not on the list. They have apparently made it clear they are happy for now.

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo. Then there’s the appeal of matchups like Clemson-Alabama, Clemson-South Carolina, Clemson-UNC, Clemson-Florida State and Clemson-Georgia all being conference games. Maybe Clemson-Miami as well?

Factor in that draw and the above is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

I think if we polled the current SEC Presidents anonymously and they each told the truth, there would be some votes for no expansion, some for only 2, and some for 4, but no appetite at all for more than 4. Ofc that could change by 2030, and the specific schools preferred can also change in the coming years.

(11-04-2025 10:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo.

Factor in that draw and this is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

And a mid tier SEC addition is top 20 nationally. In attendance, Clemson is 14th nationally, right between Oklahoma and Notre Dame. They draw more in attendance than FSU and more than UNC and Duke combined. In the Sic-Em TV analysis for 2013-21, Clemson was #10. They drew 10.45 million vs. LSU in week 1, only slightly less than FSU-Alabama and Miami-Notre Dame, both games with bigger draws than LSU. All 3 games were on ABC.

They also pulled 4.76m vs GT on ESPN h2h with Alabama-Wisconsin that was on ABC and only drew 4.51m.

Many people are convinced that Clemson won’t get a B1G invite if the SEC passes on them, but I’m confident that they would. Clemson would fit like a glove in the top 1/3 in the B1G in ratings and attendance, somewhere in the PSU or Nebraska range. CBS and NBC would be over the moon. As for their Academics….70 years in the ACC is a pretty good excuse to convince a B1G Nerd President that Clemson is elite, or at least “elite enough”.

(11-05-2025 05:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo. Then there’s the appeal of matchups like Clemson-Alabama, Clemson-South Carolina, Clemson-UNC, Clemson-Florida State and Clemson-Georgia all being conference games. Maybe Clemson-Miami as well?

Factor in that draw and the above is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

I think if we polled the current SEC Presidents anonymously and they each told the truth, there would be some votes for no expansion, some for only 2, and some for 4, but no appetite at all for more than 4. Ofc that could change by 2030, and the specific schools preferred can also change in the coming years.

Sankey has already lined up what he needs to proceed both with realignment and with a potential breakaway. He will proceed according to the largess he has already been granted.

I suspect he has approval to move to 20 in hand and knows which ones to pursue. I see no SEC president that would turn down Duke, North Carolina or Virginia. It is simply in their DNA to want those associations. ESPN will make sure if such moves are made that there is enough revenue to make it possible. I don't know of a single SEC president that would fail to grasp the value to the conference's future in taking Florida State for control of Florida that would be ours with their market added to that of the Gators.

Bryan the practice in the SEC with Slive and now Sankey was to brainstorm priorities and give permissions ahead of time so that the commissioner could act as quickly as possible when the time arrived. I see no reason whatsoever that has changed. In fact, given the length between the OU/UT announcement until now, and knowing that talks in earnest have been conducted with at least one and up to several schools, that any or all of those have already been greenlighted if they choose to seek membership.

The only emergency meeting of the presidents that could be called would be if expanding beyond 20 somehow looked necessary to protect the SEC's market and priorities. I doubt it comes to that, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

(11-05-2025 04:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Clemson, FSU, Miami, UNC, NC State, Virginia & Virginia Tech are “The Magnificent 7” ACC schools. Has that changed? FSU and Clemson filed the lawsuits, and paid the legal costs, to have the option to leave the ACC with more reasonable exit criteria. UNC perched on the fence about it. The others stood back fearing the risks without any assurances from elsewhere.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Louisville, partial Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, weren’t in that pool. They saw themselves as not being of interest by either P2 conference, or there was no desire to leave the ACC.

The ACC added SMU, Cal, and Stanford, who did not have any interest from the P2 at the time.

I believe the SEC knows which schools, assuming four them they were target for adding. I also believe those four. (or whatever number.) know where they stand as communicated to each privately by the SEC. By comparison, the BIG may be more ambiguous who they would add, and their top priority would still be adding Notre Dame who continues to refuse, publicly, that they have no desire to join a conference for football competition.

The SEC and ESPN, are really holding the cards for any near future movement and expansion. They are not in a hurry. But they certainly have a plan.

It was the Magnificent Seven because there was no clear number 8, and there is/was a small chance ND could be the number 8, so why not leave a spot open for them for a minute. GT was basically Duke in football, and basketball, even great basketball, did not, and still does not, generate the value of a good football team. But a GT with 10 or more Ws and butts in all of the seats is a different animal. If Key can return the football culture to GT then there is a lot of upside with GT. Win 10 games a year for the next 2 years, show significant fan growth and deep pocket support, and GT may get that P2 golden ticket. Maybe sooner if there is an east coast land rush.