(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.

Correct. I think it is ludicrous to think the SEC would not invite either Clemson or Miami.

(11-05-2025 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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.

It's hard to imagine the mighty SEC diluting our Brand so much with all 3 of UNC, Duke and UVA at the same time when we just saw the B1G pass on Cal and Stanford in the very recent past. I doubt that our newest members, OUT, would be particularly thrilled about that, as adding those 3 lightweights all at once would materially weaken the SEC's football and likely tv ratings in the long run. Schools like FSU or Clemson already feel like SEC schools, they wouldn't be disruptive at all. UNC all by themselves, while not a football school, has the feel of a better Kentucky if you will. Maybe even UNC + one of those 2, as we've seen these UNC + UVA rumors for a while now, despite all my howling about it being a bad move. But UNC, Duke and UVA all 3 at the same time? No, I don't think that Sankey has unanimity on those 3, or anything close to it, and he's unlikely to get the votes for all 3. I would go so far as to say that even if Sankey has a blank check and can add any 4 schools that he wants, anybody at all, he still wouldn't even consider all 3 of those schools at once. At least not today, when mbb revenues trail FB revenues by such a huge amount.

(11-05-2025 05:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(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:  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”.

The B1G wants the Eastern Seaboard. If 3 of any of the Magnificent Seven, plus GT, in 3 different states are available the B1G will pounce. Miami, FSU, and UNC, would be taken by themselves. It is not their top choice, but the B1G would take VT and NCST if paired with Miami and GT. Conventional wisdom has always been that only the SEC might take VT and NCST, but if you are building a professional college sports conference you get what you can get if it gets you down the Eastern Seaboard.

(11-05-2025 06:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

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

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

It's hard to imagine the mighty SEC diluting our Brand so much with all 3 of UNC, Duke and UVA at the same time when we just saw the B1G pass on Cal and Stanford in the very recent past. I doubt that our newest members, OUT, would be particularly thrilled about that, as adding those 3 lightweights all at once would materially weaken the SEC's football and likely tv ratings in the long run. Schools like FSU or Clemson already feel like SEC schools, they wouldn't be disruptive at all. UNC all by themselves, while not a football school, has the feel of a better Kentucky if you will. Maybe even UNC + one of those 2, as we've seen these UNC + UVA rumors for a while now, despite all my howling about it being a bad move. But UNC, Duke and UVA all 3 at the same time? No, I don't think that Sankey has unanimity on those 3, or anything close to it, and he's unlikely to get the votes for all 3. I would go so far as to say that even if Sankey has a blank check and can add any 4 schools that he wants, anybody at all, he still wouldn't even consider all 3 of those schools at once. At least not today, when mbb revenues trail FB revenues by such a huge amount.

I don't know if you are being serious or playing an angle with the board, but North Carolina and Virginia are the crown jewels of the ACC. Two largish states in which they are the AAU flagships and both play championship basketball. What has Cal done athletically in recent memory? If you want to compare Stanford to Duke, then okay, they are both AAU academic elites with academic ratings better than most Ivys. The difference is Duke plays championship basketball.

Do you take Duke to land UNC and UVa? Yes! Bryan they bring to the SEC something we haven't had outside of Kentucky who mailed it in under Calipari. Clemson we have. They are called L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Does Clemson add? Sure. Do they bring a market? Nope. They add to our middle. FSU at least brings dominance in a state of 22 million where they are the #2 to UF's #1 in market penetration. What North Carolina and Virginia do for the SEC is deliver 21 million in markets, add to our academics, and give us a national audience along with Duke in a sport where the SEC is advancing rapidly but it isn't recognized nationally yet. And all 4 play great baseball and have solid softball programs.

They don't harm the SEC in revenue, exposure, primacy in a sport we are not dominating, or in branding. Clemson is the only brand arguably tops in their state, but it's a state of 5 million and South Carolina carries their half. They add less in viewership than Georgia Tech. But like with Auburn and Alabama the fans of those two watch each other's games hoping to see a loss. Clemson's numbers are good because half of them are South Carolina people pulling for the opposition.

I like Clemson, but they aren't in the first 4 of our picks. They are what they are a solid #5 out of the ACC and first in if we don't land Virginia or Duke.

You seriously need to look at all of Miami's numbers. They are substandard in attendance, in revenue generation, and haven't produced the ratings once they lost, which has been typical of the Miami fan base. Do they have a solid pedigree? Yes. And it has solidly vacillated between mediocrity and greatness for decades if you look back all the way to the 30's and bring it forward. Virginia Tech has money issues. N.C. State's okay but they don't bring the Academics or basketball of Duke and they haven't been hyper competitive on the national level in football in a long long time. Phillip Rivers was QB the last time they were halfway relevant.

The markets make North Carolina and Virginia #1 and #2 in consideration. And they pay their way and add about 3.5 million each to SEC payouts. FSU pays its way by delivering the rest of Florida. It doesn't matter what they've done lately. And Duke will be a unanimous pick if they want to come. Not one single president will vote against their academic resume' just like no Big Ten president voted against Stanford, the network partners did. But ESPN loves Duke basketball so I don't see an issue.

If the SEC lands those 4 they will be happy as bugs in a rug, at least one that has not been sprayed. As to the rest of the ACC schools not mentioned they don't fit our profile. Arizona ain't the South and Kansas gets a look because of the needs of Missouri. And man what was Colorado without Deion? The man has two serious health issues. Colorado would be a great destination add, but I'm not seeing it.

(11-05-2025 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

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

It's hard to imagine the mighty SEC diluting our Brand so much with all 3 of UNC, Duke and UVA at the same time when we just saw the B1G pass on Cal and Stanford in the very recent past. I doubt that our newest members, OUT, would be particularly thrilled about that, as adding those 3 lightweights all at once would materially weaken the SEC's football and likely tv ratings in the long run. Schools like FSU or Clemson already feel like SEC schools, they wouldn't be disruptive at all. UNC all by themselves, while not a football school, has the feel of a better Kentucky if you will. Maybe even UNC + one of those 2, as we've seen these UNC + UVA rumors for a while now, despite all my howling about it being a bad move. But UNC, Duke and UVA all 3 at the same time? No, I don't think that Sankey has unanimity on those 3, or anything close to it, and he's unlikely to get the votes for all 3. I would go so far as to say that even if Sankey has a blank check and can add any 4 schools that he wants, anybody at all, he still wouldn't even consider all 3 of those schools at once. At least not today, when mbb revenues trail FB revenues by such a huge amount.

I don't know if you are being serious or playing an angle with the board, but North Carolina and Virginia are the crown jewels of the ACC. Two largish states in which they are the AAU flagships and both play championship basketball. What has Cal done athletically in recent memory? If you want to compare Stanford to Duke, then okay, they are both AAU academic elites with academic ratings better than most Ivys. The difference is Duke plays championship basketball.

Do you take Duke to land UNC and UVa? Yes! Bryan they bring to the SEC something we haven't had outside of Kentucky who mailed it in under Calipari. Clemson we have. They are called L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Does Clemson add? Sure. Do they bring a market? Nope. They add to our middle. FSU at least brings dominance in a state of 22 million where they are the #2 to UF's #1 in market penetration. What North Carolina and Virginia do for the SEC is deliver 21 million in markets, add to our academics, and give us a national audience along with Duke in a sport where the SEC is advancing rapidly but it isn't recognized nationally yet. And all 4 play great baseball and have solid softball programs.

They don't harm the SEC in revenue, exposure, primacy in a sport we are not dominating, or in branding. Clemson is the only brand arguably tops in their state, but it's a state of 5 million and South Carolina carries their half. They add less in viewership than Georgia Tech. But like with Auburn and Alabama the fans of those two watch each other's games hoping to see a loss. Clemson's numbers are good because half of them are South Carolina people pulling for the opposition.

I like Clemson, but they aren't in the first 4 of our picks. They are what they are a solid #5 out of the ACC and first in if we don't land Virginia or Duke.

You seriously need to look at all of Miami's numbers. They are substandard in attendance, in revenue generation, and haven't produced the ratings once they lost, which has been typical of the Miami fan base. Do they have a solid pedigree? Yes. And it has solidly vacillated between mediocrity and greatness for decades if you look back all the way to the 30's and bring it forward. Virginia Tech has money issues. N.C. State's okay but they don't bring the Academics or basketball of Duke and they haven't been hyper competitive on the national level in football in a long long time. Phillip Rivers was QB the last time they were halfway relevant.

The markets make North Carolina and Virginia #1 and #2 in consideration. And they pay their way and add about 3.5 million each to SEC payouts. FSU pays its way by delivering the rest of Florida. It doesn't matter what they've done lately. And Duke will be a unanimous pick if they want to come. Not one single president will vote against their academic resume' just like no Big Ten president voted against Stanford, the network partners did. But ESPN loves Duke basketball so I don't see an issue.

If the SEC lands those 4 they will be happy as bugs in a rug, at least one that has not been sprayed. As to the rest of the ACC schools not mentioned they don't fit our profile. Arizona ain't the South and Kansas gets a look because of the needs of Missouri. And man what was Colorado without Deion? The man has two serious health issues. Colorado would be a great destination add, but I'm not seeing it.

Just send us Kentucky, we'll send you FSU and call it a day.

(11-05-2025 08:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

It's hard to imagine the mighty SEC diluting our Brand so much with all 3 of UNC, Duke and UVA at the same time when we just saw the B1G pass on Cal and Stanford in the very recent past. I doubt that our newest members, OUT, would be particularly thrilled about that, as adding those 3 lightweights all at once would materially weaken the SEC's football and likely tv ratings in the long run. Schools like FSU or Clemson already feel like SEC schools, they wouldn't be disruptive at all. UNC all by themselves, while not a football school, has the feel of a better Kentucky if you will. Maybe even UNC + one of those 2, as we've seen these UNC + UVA rumors for a while now, despite all my howling about it being a bad move. But UNC, Duke and UVA all 3 at the same time? No, I don't think that Sankey has unanimity on those 3, or anything close to it, and he's unlikely to get the votes for all 3. I would go so far as to say that even if Sankey has a blank check and can add any 4 schools that he wants, anybody at all, he still wouldn't even consider all 3 of those schools at once. At least not today, when mbb revenues trail FB revenues by such a huge amount.

I don't know if you are being serious or playing an angle with the board, but North Carolina and Virginia are the crown jewels of the ACC. Two largish states in which they are the AAU flagships and both play championship basketball. What has Cal done athletically in recent memory? If you want to compare Stanford to Duke, then okay, they are both AAU academic elites with academic ratings better than most Ivys. The difference is Duke plays championship basketball.

Do you take Duke to land UNC and UVa? Yes! Bryan they bring to the SEC something we haven't had outside of Kentucky who mailed it in under Calipari. Clemson we have. They are called L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Does Clemson add? Sure. Do they bring a market? Nope. They add to our middle. FSU at least brings dominance in a state of 22 million where they are the #2 to UF's #1 in market penetration. What North Carolina and Virginia do for the SEC is deliver 21 million in markets, add to our academics, and give us a national audience along with Duke in a sport where the SEC is advancing rapidly but it isn't recognized nationally yet. And all 4 play great baseball and have solid softball programs.

They don't harm the SEC in revenue, exposure, primacy in a sport we are not dominating, or in branding. Clemson is the only brand arguably tops in their state, but it's a state of 5 million and South Carolina carries their half. They add less in viewership than Georgia Tech. But like with Auburn and Alabama the fans of those two watch each other's games hoping to see a loss. Clemson's numbers are good because half of them are South Carolina people pulling for the opposition.

I like Clemson, but they aren't in the first 4 of our picks. They are what they are a solid #5 out of the ACC and first in if we don't land Virginia or Duke.

You seriously need to look at all of Miami's numbers. They are substandard in attendance, in revenue generation, and haven't produced the ratings once they lost, which has been typical of the Miami fan base. Do they have a solid pedigree? Yes. And it has solidly vacillated between mediocrity and greatness for decades if you look back all the way to the 30's and bring it forward. Virginia Tech has money issues. N.C. State's okay but they don't bring the Academics or basketball of Duke and they haven't been hyper competitive on the national level in football in a long long time. Phillip Rivers was QB the last time they were halfway relevant.

The markets make North Carolina and Virginia #1 and #2 in consideration. And they pay their way and add about 3.5 million each to SEC payouts. FSU pays its way by delivering the rest of Florida. It doesn't matter what they've done lately. And Duke will be a unanimous pick if they want to come. Not one single president will vote against their academic resume' just like no Big Ten president voted against Stanford, the network partners did. But ESPN loves Duke basketball so I don't see an issue.

If the SEC lands those 4 they will be happy as bugs in a rug, at least one that has not been sprayed. As to the rest of the ACC schools not mentioned they don't fit our profile. Arizona ain't the South and Kansas gets a look because of the needs of Missouri. And man what was Colorado without Deion? The man has two serious health issues. Colorado would be a great destination add, but I'm not seeing it.

Just send us Kentucky, we'll send you FSU and call it a day.

Ha, just merge and add Kansas and South Florida and play 12 conference games and hold an 8 school playoff for the championship of the Greater South. We'd be happier!

(11-05-2025 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

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

It's hard to imagine the mighty SEC diluting our Brand so much with all 3 of UNC, Duke and UVA at the same time when we just saw the B1G pass on Cal and Stanford in the very recent past. I doubt that our newest members, OUT, would be particularly thrilled about that, as adding those 3 lightweights all at once would materially weaken the SEC's football and likely tv ratings in the long run. Schools like FSU or Clemson already feel like SEC schools, they wouldn't be disruptive at all. UNC all by themselves, while not a football school, has the feel of a better Kentucky if you will. Maybe even UNC + one of those 2, as we've seen these UNC + UVA rumors for a while now, despite all my howling about it being a bad move. But UNC, Duke and UVA all 3 at the same time? No, I don't think that Sankey has unanimity on those 3, or anything close to it, and he's unlikely to get the votes for all 3. I would go so far as to say that even if Sankey has a blank check and can add any 4 schools that he wants, anybody at all, he still wouldn't even consider all 3 of those schools at once. At least not today, when mbb revenues trail FB revenues by such a huge amount.

I don't know if you are being serious or playing an angle with the board, but North Carolina and Virginia are the crown jewels of the ACC. Two largish states in which they are the AAU flagships and both play championship basketball. What has Cal done athletically in recent memory? If you want to compare Stanford to Duke, then okay, they are both AAU academic elites with academic ratings better than most Ivys. The difference is Duke plays championship basketball.

Do you take Duke to land UNC and UVa? Yes! Bryan they bring to the SEC something we haven't had outside of Kentucky who mailed it in under Calipari. Clemson we have. They are called L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Does Clemson add? Sure. Do they bring a market? Nope. They add to our middle. FSU at least brings dominance in a state of 22 million where they are the #2 to UF's #1 in market penetration. What North Carolina and Virginia do for the SEC is deliver 21 million in markets, add to our academics, and give us a national audience along with Duke in a sport where the SEC is advancing rapidly but it isn't recognized nationally yet. And all 4 play great baseball and have solid softball programs.

They don't harm the SEC in revenue, exposure, primacy in a sport we are not dominating, or in branding. Clemson is the only brand arguably tops in their state, but it's a state of 5 million and South Carolina carries their half. They add less in viewership than Georgia Tech. But like with Auburn and Alabama the fans of those two watch each other's games hoping to see a loss. Clemson's numbers are good because half of them are South Carolina people pulling for the opposition.

I like Clemson, but they aren't in the first 4 of our picks. They are what they are a solid #5 out of the ACC and first in if we don't land Virginia or Duke.

You seriously need to look at all of Miami's numbers. They are substandard in attendance, in revenue generation, and haven't produced the ratings once they lost, which has been typical of the Miami fan base. Do they have a solid pedigree? Yes. And it has solidly vacillated between mediocrity and greatness for decades if you look back all the way to the 30's and bring it forward. Virginia Tech has money issues. N.C. State's okay but they don't bring the Academics or basketball of Duke and they haven't been hyper competitive on the national level in football in a long long time. Phillip Rivers was QB the last time they were halfway relevant.

The markets make North Carolina and Virginia #1 and #2 in consideration. And they pay their way and add about 3.5 million each to SEC payouts. FSU pays its way by delivering the rest of Florida. It doesn't matter what they've done lately. And Duke will be a unanimous pick if they want to come. Not one single president will vote against their academic resume' just like no Big Ten president voted against Stanford, the network partners did. But ESPN loves Duke basketball so I don't see an issue.

If the SEC lands those 4 they will be happy as bugs in a rug, at least one that has not been sprayed. As to the rest of the ACC schools not mentioned they don't fit our profile. Arizona ain't the South and Kansas gets a look because of the needs of Missouri. And man what was Colorado without Deion? The man has two serious health issues. Colorado would be a great destination add, but I'm not seeing it.

Markets is so 2011 thinking.

And you haven't shown how basketball can be monetized in any way that requires expansion. Taking control of tourney revenues doesn't require expansion. And there is a P5 in basketball, not a P2.

(11-05-2025 09:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 06:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

It's hard to imagine the mighty SEC diluting our Brand so much with all 3 of UNC, Duke and UVA at the same time when we just saw the B1G pass on Cal and Stanford in the very recent past. I doubt that our newest members, OUT, would be particularly thrilled about that, as adding those 3 lightweights all at once would materially weaken the SEC's football and likely tv ratings in the long run. Schools like FSU or Clemson already feel like SEC schools, they wouldn't be disruptive at all. UNC all by themselves, while not a football school, has the feel of a better Kentucky if you will. Maybe even UNC + one of those 2, as we've seen these UNC + UVA rumors for a while now, despite all my howling about it being a bad move. But UNC, Duke and UVA all 3 at the same time? No, I don't think that Sankey has unanimity on those 3, or anything close to it, and he's unlikely to get the votes for all 3. I would go so far as to say that even if Sankey has a blank check and can add any 4 schools that he wants, anybody at all, he still wouldn't even consider all 3 of those schools at once. At least not today, when mbb revenues trail FB revenues by such a huge amount.

I don't know if you are being serious or playing an angle with the board, but North Carolina and Virginia are the crown jewels of the ACC. Two largish states in which they are the AAU flagships and both play championship basketball. What has Cal done athletically in recent memory? If you want to compare Stanford to Duke, then okay, they are both AAU academic elites with academic ratings better than most Ivys. The difference is Duke plays championship basketball.

Do you take Duke to land UNC and UVa? Yes! Bryan they bring to the SEC something we haven't had outside of Kentucky who mailed it in under Calipari. Clemson we have. They are called L.S.U., Auburn, Tennessee, and South Carolina. Does Clemson add? Sure. Do they bring a market? Nope. They add to our middle. FSU at least brings dominance in a state of 22 million where they are the #2 to UF's #1 in market penetration. What North Carolina and Virginia do for the SEC is deliver 21 million in markets, add to our academics, and give us a national audience along with Duke in a sport where the SEC is advancing rapidly but it isn't recognized nationally yet. And all 4 play great baseball and have solid softball programs.

They don't harm the SEC in revenue, exposure, primacy in a sport we are not dominating, or in branding. Clemson is the only brand arguably tops in their state, but it's a state of 5 million and South Carolina carries their half. They add less in viewership than Georgia Tech. But like with Auburn and Alabama the fans of those two watch each other's games hoping to see a loss. Clemson's numbers are good because half of them are South Carolina people pulling for the opposition.

I like Clemson, but they aren't in the first 4 of our picks. They are what they are a solid #5 out of the ACC and first in if we don't land Virginia or Duke.

You seriously need to look at all of Miami's numbers. They are substandard in attendance, in revenue generation, and haven't produced the ratings once they lost, which has been typical of the Miami fan base. Do they have a solid pedigree? Yes. And it has solidly vacillated between mediocrity and greatness for decades if you look back all the way to the 30's and bring it forward. Virginia Tech has money issues. N.C. State's okay but they don't bring the Academics or basketball of Duke and they haven't been hyper competitive on the national level in football in a long long time. Phillip Rivers was QB the last time they were halfway relevant.

The markets make North Carolina and Virginia #1 and #2 in consideration. And they pay their way and add about 3.5 million each to SEC payouts. FSU pays its way by delivering the rest of Florida. It doesn't matter what they've done lately. And Duke will be a unanimous pick if they want to come. Not one single president will vote against their academic resume' just like no Big Ten president voted against Stanford, the network partners did. But ESPN loves Duke basketball so I don't see an issue.

If the SEC lands those 4 they will be happy as bugs in a rug, at least one that has not been sprayed. As to the rest of the ACC schools not mentioned they don't fit our profile. Arizona ain't the South and Kansas gets a look because of the needs of Missouri. And man what was Colorado without Deion? The man has two serious health issues. Colorado would be a great destination add, but I'm not seeing it.

Markets is so 2011 thinking.

And you haven't shown how basketball can be monetized in any way that requires expansion. Taking control of tourney revenues doesn't require expansion. And there is a P5 in basketball, not a P2.

Really??? What do you think the Big Ten was adding with U.C.L.A. and U.S.C.? At least Oregon and Washington, you know the ones with the half shares, had actually been winning more than they were losing.

The SEC's goal since 1991 was to dominate the markets of the South. We only lack two of any size, North Carolina and Virginia and we need to consolidate our hold on Florida. It's not rocket science. Add Sankey's stated goal to see the SEC dominant in all sports and emphasis on branding, toss in academics for the presidents and there's your recipe. Duke, UNC, Kentucky and to an extent Virginia will bring national eyes on basketball broadcasts in the winter. You know Bullet the conference wants to make good money in all 4 seasons of the year and not just in the Fall. Late Spring to Summer we dominate Softball and Baseball. Winter has been the weak link in our annual revenue stream. And those folks in Virginia and North Carolina tune in for more than basketball. It's not about winning and losing it's about viewership. And leaving those markets for the Big Ten to take makes no damn sense at all. It only opens up the possibility of further expansion into the South with lesser brands.

They pay for themselves simply by being on the SECN. Added hoops revenue and whatever FSU multiplies the football viewership by will cover the moves and we will profit. Why do you think North Carolina and Clemson paid us a visit in 2021 in July. They already knew where it all was heading, as did ESPN, as did the Big Ten, as did FOX, and with Alston the heat to move was only ramped up.

With the enrollment cliff looming all of the major brands are scrambling if they aren't wearing SEC and Big Ten patches already. It's not about sports per se but about maintaining enrollment by brand association and by being on the tube more than the next guy. So yes Bullet it's about markets when the markets pay their way. It's about brand when branding pays the way, and what it is not about is nearly as much as the folks here think is winning. We all know the brands.

Why do you think the PAC lost 4 of its top 5 brands to the Big Ten and the Big 12 lost it's top 2 brands to the SEC and before that lost a top 4 brand in the Aggies and lost Nebraska to the Big Ten.

Now it's time for the ACC to face the reaping. Who are their top brands? In ESPN's eyes it is North Carolina, Duke, Florida State and Clemson. But ESPN is also interested in keeping large markets, like Virginia and holding their own in Florida which may require switching one who sued to get out of the ACC into the SEC so they can keep control of that market. If only 4 are moved you tell me who gets left out. Most agree the SEC maximizes the value of the current football branding. Add Duke and UNC to Kentucky, toss in Virginia for another reletively recent hoops champion and a major market and secure Florida and there isn't any room left with which to double down in South Carolina.

Now if we go to 22 at some point, sure.

This isn't just about football, at least not for the SEC and ESPN.

(11-05-2025 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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:  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!

If we add FSU and UNC, the B1G adds Miami and Clemson. Nobody else other than ND moves the needle. No reason for either of us to look beyond those schools today. We can always circle back around in 10-15 years to UVA, Duke, GT, or any other M2 schools we find interesting…they’ll still be interested, but we will have more time to see who rises above the fray, and also to digest our ~ 2030 moves before considering any more.

(11-05-2025 10:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

(11-04-2025 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

If we add FSU and UNC, the B1G adds Miami and Clemson. Nobody else other than ND moves the needle. No reason for either of us to look beyond those schools today. We can always circle back around in 10-15 years to UVA, Duke, GT, or any other M2 schools we find interesting…they’ll still be interested, but we will have more time to see who rises above the fray, and also to digest our ~ 2030 moves before considering any more.

Bryan there was some thought that if we added North Carolina and Florida State that the Big Ten might not add at all. Same was true of Kansas and Florida State. Both would be at 18 and in a better position to work together on the future. The Big 12 is at 16 and the ACC would be at 15 plus Notre Dame. If they did take in South Florida it disturbs no other P conference. If it had been Kansas perhaps the Big 12 picks up Memphis. In either case things stabilize.

There's a healthier more cooperative upper tier still presented as a P4.

The SEC would be adding major brand in each revenue sport. It makes sense, stops the destruction potentially about to happen, cools down some heated feelings before cooperation on bigger matters are needed, and resolves this mess for some time to come. The value of North Carolina and FSU are roughly that of Oregon and Washington, the 17th and 18th members of the Big Ten.

So why not do this, which is reasonable, builds trust and cooperation, and allows the upper tier to get on with the CFP and possibly a new hoops tournament. Because the Big Ten feels they are still behind from the additions of Texas and Oklahoma and feel that market wise they will suffer unless they can complete their Coast to Coast strategy and access some points in the Southeast. And as long as they choose to do that we will choose to isolate them as much as we possibly can. We grew organically, and they jumped the shark and grew out of their greatest ally, which was probably not the smartest move at the time.

The SEC had no interest in the PAC 12 schools. They were out of our region. There was no reason for the Big Ten to pounce on them when they did. They should have turned their attention either to the Southwest or the Atlantic Coast first. They played some cards out of turn and now feel the need to continue to press. That's the only reason anyone down here is looking at 20. Plus, if the Big Then moves to 20 so too will the SEC. Matching inventory means matching votes for all future matters.

(11-05-2025 10:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

(11-04-2025 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

If we add FSU and UNC, the B1G adds Miami and Clemson. Nobody else other than ND moves the needle. No reason for either of us to look beyond those schools today. We can always circle back around in 10-15 years to UVA, Duke, GT, or any other M2 schools we find interesting…they’ll still be interested, but we will have more time to see who rises above the fray, and also to digest our ~ 2030 moves before considering any more.

If the big10 has a choice between Clemson and Duke, they likely pick Duke.

If the SEC has a choice between Clemson and Duke, they likely pick Clemson.

Each conference has their own specific wants and needs and criteria thereof.

(11-05-2025 10:16 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-05-2025 12:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

(11-04-2025 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

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

If we add FSU and UNC, the B1G adds Miami and Clemson. Nobody else other than ND moves the needle. No reason for either of us to look beyond those schools today. We can always circle back around in 10-15 years to UVA, Duke, GT, or any other M2 schools we find interesting…they’ll still be interested, but we will have more time to see who rises above the fray, and also to digest our ~ 2030 moves before considering any more.

Notre Dame has carefully constructed a conference to their liking without committing to a full football schedule.
The Irish are also keeping ESPN and the SEC at bay by adding multiple SEC schools to their football schedules. This gives ESPN high profile games to broadcast, but it also gives the SEC exposure via NBC to a market that the Big Ten has tried to take away from ESPN. The cost to ESPN? Keep your hands off of the ACC (maybe with the exception of Florida State).

(11-05-2025 06:01 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  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.
....

Say what? It was the Magnificent Seven because it was a list of 7 schools. Count ‘em.

Virginia Tech
Virginia
NC State
North Carolina
Clemson
Florida State
Miami

There was no number 8.

Do you know what the list was counting?

It was counting universities who had sent attorneys, at university expense, to the ACC league office to scrutinise the ACC’s grant of rights over the course of a year—and who identified themselves as such to reporter Brett McMurphy, just prior to an ACC meeting, so he could tweet it out.

This isn’t some conjectural speculative thing. And the list was not directly related to this or that conference’s preference for even numbers, or even availability of spots.

The ACC was then a conference with 15 members. The implication of the number was clear. If the membership voted on anything, and if the 7 voted together as a bloc, one more vote would make a straightforward majority.

The immediate result was what was by all accounts a long overdue and candid family discussion in the meeting, followed by the installment of the first success initiatives.

The ripples went far beyond that, I agree. The schools who allowed their names to go out were very aware that the audience for Mr McMurphy’s tweet was much larger than the audience for that day’s ACC meeting. We can be sure the geography of the group—a string of athletic beads running straight down the southeast Atlantic coast—was not lost on either of the emergent P2 leagues who saw the news.

It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

(11-06-2025 07:16 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

And that all benefitted from the new clarity achieved by Florida State and Clemson in the litigation and subsequent settlement.

Kum Ba Yah.

(11-06-2025 07:30 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 07:16 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

And that all benefitted from the new clarity achieved by Florida State and Clemson in the litigation and subsequent settlement.

Kum Ba Yah.

All benefitted from an increase in ACCN revenue and the addition of a CFP participant which donates its regular media cut, despite the antagonists as well. Yes, this includes Carolina.

(11-06-2025 07:30 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 07:16 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

And that all benefitted from the new clarity achieved by Florida State and Clemson in the litigation and subsequent settlement.

Kum Ba Yah.

Unfortunately that clarity only kicked the "movement can" down the road.
Notre Dame bribed Clemson to stay in the ACC, and FSU's problem has become finding a partner to move with.
JR's suggestion has been to put Kansas on your Christmas Card list.

(11-06-2025 07:16 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

bolded - you glossed over: [i]except for FSU, Clemson, NC, and[\i] (initially)[i] North Carolina State.

That's over half the M7...

(11-06-2025 08:35 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 07:16 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

bolded - you glossed over: [i]except for FSU, Clemson, NC, and[\i] (initially)[i] North Carolina State.

That's over half the M7...

State did alter their objection and 4 is a majority of 7.



The ACC is run by committees. Sometimes it's difficult for someone outside the Club to understand internal politics.
It's possible that North Carolina was actually for the expansion but didn't vote that way because their vote was not necessary for the measure to pass, but internally kept peace in Chapel Hill among several warring factions.

(11-06-2025 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC is run by committees. Sometimes it's difficult for someone outside the Club to understand internal politics.
It's possible that North Carolina was actually for the expansion but didn't vote that way because their vote was not necessary for the measure to pass, but internally kept peace in Chapel Hill among several warring factions.

If only the rest of the world could understand the complex ways things work in North Carolina, yada yada.

North Carolina schools are like anybody else in the ACC. If they get a P2 bid they’re going.

Thanks to the Mag 7, others in the ACC learned the revenue gap was a problem. Thanks to Florida State, Clemson, and ESPN, everyone now knows the precise terms of exit with guaranteed retention of their rights.

You’re welcome.