(11-06-2025 09:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 05:55 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland did they get two schools which were champions in anything? North Carolina and Duke are rated higher academically, and each has won championships in a revenue sport, and more recently than any of the Big Ten's basketball programs. Alabama vs Louisiana Monroe will be outdrawn by Alabama vs Virginia. Auburn vs Middle Tennessee will be outdrawn by Auburn vs North Carolina, and that doesn't even touch what Duke vs Kentucky and North Carolina vs Kentucky, or Virginia vs Kentucky will do nationally in basketball.

The only thing needed to keep the SEC's dynamic for football is improvements on the schedule for the buy games. When the Big Ten and SEC are playing only P games for 12 regular season games nobody will care if North Carolina, Duke or Virginia are on the schedule. Those tickets will start at the 75 dollar amount the same as any SEC game or P5 game, and the 55 dollar FCS and 65 dollar G5 tickets will be gone. Each school will make more more money and that is all that will matter.

I grew up in New Jersey, went to Villanova undergrad. I moved to Alabama for grad school and have been in SEC Country since.

Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).

Aside from possibly a jolt of cash coming from subscriber fees and the promises of great content for their media partners, the Big Ten is not better off with those additions. That jolt of cash will peter out soon enough and the SEC will get paid what it deserves for having a substantially more interesting, more watched product -- so why would the SEC make the same mistake the Big Ten made?

I took a stab at this one the other day. I think that the B1G did the best they could with what they had, with their one mistake being taking Maryland instead of Missouri. Consider:

PSU - nobody is disputing that this was a slam dunk
Nebraska - PSU of the midwest
Maryland - um
Rutgers - we'll circle back to Maryland and Rutgers
USC - PSU of LA
UCLA - UNC of LA, still playing games for now in the Rose Bowl of all places
Washington - FSU of the PNW
Oregon - Clemson of the PNW

Oregon, Washington, USC, Nebraska and PSU have all enhanced B1G matchups, prestige and football enthusiasm. UCLA...more like UNC, their great strengths are market, basketball and overall everything other than football, and they're respectable generally but not Elite in football. The only 2 that we can look at and say "no reasonable person expected this to work out in football" are Maryland and Rutgers.

So, let's examine Maryland and Rutgers. As Frank and other B1G fans talk about, those 2 schools juiced BTN revenues at a time when that was a huge portion of overall B1G revenues. They helped so much, or at least didn't dilute things at all, so much so that the B1G was able to actually come up with a half decent response to the OUT bombshell of 2021. The rest of the P5 were scrambling after that, the Big 12 barely survived, the Pac 12 didn't survive at all, and the ACC's tepid response was 3 far-distant schools that nobody watches on tv or in person. Looked at from that perspective, the Rutgers and Maryland moves were justifiable, even though neither has done much on the football field. The only change I'd make with hindsight is Missouri over Maryland, which, hey, I'm glad they didn't do that b/c any potential #14 to go with A&M wouldn't have been as solid for the SEC as Missouri has been. Maybe NC St? GT would have been a quality Missouri replacement, maybe 90% as good, but they wouldn't give us a 6m State that is completely dominated by one school, and they probably couldn't have gotten enough support from the original 10 schools after leaving the SEC and then refusing an offer to return a few years after they left. Also, the SEC needed new markets to get more $$ from ESPN...it probably would have been NC St, which would have complicated our UNC aspirations in a way that A&M didn't complicate things for us with Texas (I still think that 90% of the reason Texas moved to the SEC was so that they wouldn't drift to a distant #2 permanently in their own State, a not unreasonable concern after watching A&M's first decade in the SEC). Anyway, the B1G could have caused the SEC some consternation over the past decade while also ultimately strengthening their own product on the field with a quality program like Missouri instead of an also-ran like Maryland that just happened to be in a very slightly better location. And we all know that Missouri would have jumped at a B1G offer back in 2011. Today, I don't think that they'd leave the SEC for any reason, and their 6m people are now firmly in SEC country.

So...5 strong football additions, one that is ok but overall elite in all sports, and 2 that were poor choices. The B1G's biggest problem isn't their additions, but rather that, of their original 10, Michigan and OSU carry such an outsized role. Those 2 dominated the original 10, with only very rare instances of either being eclipsed, and not much churn from the bottom and middle tier at all really. Of the original SEC 10, 6 of them have won at least 1 National Title since 1998, and they've won about 2/3 of the titles of the past 20 years even with 2 straight to the B1g. New additions OUT have also each won one national title since 1998 and have proven to still be elite on the field after joining the SEC. A&M has also been a lot better on the field in the past 14 years than we were in about that same number of years in the Big 12. Missouri has been about the same as they were in the Big 12 and Big 8, some excellent years, some not so excellent, but overall very competitive. Of the B1G's 8 total additions since 1990, the only one that hasn't suffered a clear dropoff after joining is Oregon.

Perhaps the B1G's problem has not so much been the schools that they've added, but rather that they've brought in some great Brands and then strangled their resources so much so that those Brands lost some of their luster after joining. Hardly the kind of Welcome Mat they want to be putting out their for potential future ACC additions...

I hope that's not an academic similarity you're making. LOL

Why in the world would you think I was making an academics comparison. Read my post and the post I was replying to, we were talking about how recent B1G additions affected their on-field product. Even the B1G, with all of their supposed Academics focus, took Oregon over Stanford in 2023. Let that sink in for a moment, and then tell us how much importance they actually place on the Academics of new members. And isn’t it funny that 3 of the last 4 SEC additions were AAU, and the 4th has 8 National Titles?

Anybody who wants to know why I’m so skeptical of adding a bunch from the ACC, just look at the schools the SEC has added over the years.

My bad. But I'll note that my local adopted Huskies, as big a school as it is, got their Invite not mostly by athletics. I just thought it was ironic.
I'll move on.

(11-06-2025 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:00 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:35 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  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.

Opinions may vary, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the top 3 SEC adds in most realignment lists are those 3.

Huh?

Most realignment lists suggest that the top two picks for the SEC are North Carolina and Virginia.

The ones with sources have tended to say that.

But like with the Big Ten and Stanford, the Mouse has a say and will prefer ratings over academics. They may well get in, but FSU and Clemson have to be in also.

That Mouse is the Paying Public, and they want a balanced N/S P2. Athletics over academics.

Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

Yes, it would. It would be the same for the large land-grant state flagship public school Big Ten as well.

Square peg/round hole.

(11-07-2025 11:01 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 09:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 05:55 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  I grew up in New Jersey, went to Villanova undergrad. I moved to Alabama for grad school and have been in SEC Country since.

Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).

Aside from possibly a jolt of cash coming from subscriber fees and the promises of great content for their media partners, the Big Ten is not better off with those additions. That jolt of cash will peter out soon enough and the SEC will get paid what it deserves for having a substantially more interesting, more watched product -- so why would the SEC make the same mistake the Big Ten made?

I took a stab at this one the other day. I think that the B1G did the best they could with what they had, with their one mistake being taking Maryland instead of Missouri. Consider:

PSU - nobody is disputing that this was a slam dunk
Nebraska - PSU of the midwest
Maryland - um
Rutgers - we'll circle back to Maryland and Rutgers
USC - PSU of LA
UCLA - UNC of LA, still playing games for now in the Rose Bowl of all places
Washington - FSU of the PNW
Oregon - Clemson of the PNW

Oregon, Washington, USC, Nebraska and PSU have all enhanced B1G matchups, prestige and football enthusiasm. UCLA...more like UNC, their great strengths are market, basketball and overall everything other than football, and they're respectable generally but not Elite in football. The only 2 that we can look at and say "no reasonable person expected this to work out in football" are Maryland and Rutgers.

So, let's examine Maryland and Rutgers. As Frank and other B1G fans talk about, those 2 schools juiced BTN revenues at a time when that was a huge portion of overall B1G revenues. They helped so much, or at least didn't dilute things at all, so much so that the B1G was able to actually come up with a half decent response to the OUT bombshell of 2021. The rest of the P5 were scrambling after that, the Big 12 barely survived, the Pac 12 didn't survive at all, and the ACC's tepid response was 3 far-distant schools that nobody watches on tv or in person. Looked at from that perspective, the Rutgers and Maryland moves were justifiable, even though neither has done much on the football field. The only change I'd make with hindsight is Missouri over Maryland, which, hey, I'm glad they didn't do that b/c any potential #14 to go with A&M wouldn't have been as solid for the SEC as Missouri has been. Maybe NC St? GT would have been a quality Missouri replacement, maybe 90% as good, but they wouldn't give us a 6m State that is completely dominated by one school, and they probably couldn't have gotten enough support from the original 10 schools after leaving the SEC and then refusing an offer to return a few years after they left. Also, the SEC needed new markets to get more $$ from ESPN...it probably would have been NC St, which would have complicated our UNC aspirations in a way that A&M didn't complicate things for us with Texas (I still think that 90% of the reason Texas moved to the SEC was so that they wouldn't drift to a distant #2 permanently in their own State, a not unreasonable concern after watching A&M's first decade in the SEC). Anyway, the B1G could have caused the SEC some consternation over the past decade while also ultimately strengthening their own product on the field with a quality program like Missouri instead of an also-ran like Maryland that just happened to be in a very slightly better location. And we all know that Missouri would have jumped at a B1G offer back in 2011. Today, I don't think that they'd leave the SEC for any reason, and their 6m people are now firmly in SEC country.

So...5 strong football additions, one that is ok but overall elite in all sports, and 2 that were poor choices. The B1G's biggest problem isn't their additions, but rather that, of their original 10, Michigan and OSU carry such an outsized role. Those 2 dominated the original 10, with only very rare instances of either being eclipsed, and not much churn from the bottom and middle tier at all really. Of the original SEC 10, 6 of them have won at least 1 National Title since 1998, and they've won about 2/3 of the titles of the past 20 years even with 2 straight to the B1g. New additions OUT have also each won one national title since 1998 and have proven to still be elite on the field after joining the SEC. A&M has also been a lot better on the field in the past 14 years than we were in about that same number of years in the Big 12. Missouri has been about the same as they were in the Big 12 and Big 8, some excellent years, some not so excellent, but overall very competitive. Of the B1G's 8 total additions since 1990, the only one that hasn't suffered a clear dropoff after joining is Oregon.

Perhaps the B1G's problem has not so much been the schools that they've added, but rather that they've brought in some great Brands and then strangled their resources so much so that those Brands lost some of their luster after joining. Hardly the kind of Welcome Mat they want to be putting out their for potential future ACC additions...

I hope that's not an academic similarity you're making. LOL

Why in the world would you think I was making an academics comparison. Read my post and the post I was replying to, we were talking about how recent B1G additions affected their on-field product. Even the B1G, with all of their supposed Academics focus, took Oregon over Stanford in 2023. Let that sink in for a moment, and then tell us how much importance they actually place on the Academics of new members. And isn’t it funny that 3 of the last 4 SEC additions were AAU, and the 4th has 8 National Titles?

Anybody who wants to know why I’m so skeptical of adding a bunch from the ACC, just look at the schools the SEC has added over the years.

My bad. But I'll note that my local adopted Huskies, as big a school as it is, got their Invite not mostly by athletics. I just thought it was ironic.
I'll move on.

Washington packs in 70k for games.
They finished #2 the year they were invited.
681-447-32 all time record
39 bowls
15 weeks at #1
Great location on a 7m pop state that they dominate
#4 in total Rose Bowls and Rose Bowl wins
84-35 record last 10 years, with 5 double digit wins seasons and a chance this year, too
5 top 12 finishes in past 9 years
Oh yeah, they’re also one of the best Academic Institutions in the world

They got added with Oregon, a school that is, ahem, a bit further down the Academics pecking order. You wanna know why Washington was added instead of Cal or Stanford? It wasn’t bc of their admittedly great Academics, bc Cal and Stanford are better.

Washington is a better version of Wisconsin. If they weren’t so dang far away, they’d have been very high on the SEC’s list, too.

(11-07-2025 11:06 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 05:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:00 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  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.

Opinions may vary, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the top 3 SEC adds in most realignment lists are those 3.

Huh?

Most realignment lists suggest that the top two picks for the SEC are North Carolina and Virginia.

The ones with sources have tended to say that.

But like with the Big Ten and Stanford, the Mouse has a say and will prefer ratings over academics. They may well get in, but FSU and Clemson have to be in also.

That Mouse is the Paying Public, and they want a balanced N/S P2. Athletics over academics.

All these UNC/UVA rumors have me wondering if we’re not in some bizarro world in which the SEC prefers Academic juggernauts and the B1G prefers football factories.

Perhaps we are looking at this in a few years:

SEC

UNC
UVA
Miami
FSU (hopefully they’re AAU by then)

B1G

Clemson
Texas Tech

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

The point Bullet is that the TV networks are paying for it. The conferences aren't adding anyone the networks aren't willing to pay for. Your dismissal of Kansas and promotion of Miami are two things they might very well disagree about.

Whoever does or doesn't wind up in the SEC the likeliest proponent for those making it will be ESPN and the likeliest detractor for them not making it will be ESPN. The presidents will merely vote on those endorsed by ESPN. And that is simply reality because the SEC isn't adding anyone ESPN won't pay for us to have.

The same is true of FOX/NBC/CBS for the Big Ten. IMO, they have more issues only because of the number of networks that must agree. Otherwise, the reality is the same. Their presidents will vote on those the networks are willing to pay for.

Now when you can figure out what and why ESPN or FOX wants you can start a blog.

My money is that ESPN, and it is what I have argued consistently, will protect its revenue structure that it has taken 30 years to assemble. But in any event, their reasons trump your reasons, my reasons, and absolutely every other poster's reasons unless the reasoning coincides. Past history has shown that ESPN has been willing to pay a little extra on T3 rights to hold onto Texas and Kansas, willing to stay out of a court case the ACC fought so that no matter the outcome they could keep a hold on FSU and Clemson, and willing to bend over backwards on scheduling to keep Duke and North Carolina hyped in the same way they push certain SEC football brands.

ESPN promotes its own interests this way. The schools that never get hyped are usually not key to their profit structure. ESPN doesn't speak against them; they just don't push them. Whatever the SEC takes from the ACC will be something ESPN absolutely wants to keep. And regardless of what anyone else thinks, those schools will be profitable because ESPN paid for them.

(11-07-2025 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

Yes, it would. It would be the same for the large land-grant state flagship public school Big Ten as well.

Square peg/round hole.

The ACC is actually a good fit for Notre Dame. As it now exists.

(11-07-2025 12:35 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 11:01 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 09:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 05:55 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I took a stab at this one the other day. I think that the B1G did the best they could with what they had, with their one mistake being taking Maryland instead of Missouri. Consider:

PSU - nobody is disputing that this was a slam dunk
Nebraska - PSU of the midwest
Maryland - um
Rutgers - we'll circle back to Maryland and Rutgers
USC - PSU of LA
UCLA - UNC of LA, still playing games for now in the Rose Bowl of all places
Washington - FSU of the PNW
Oregon - Clemson of the PNW

Oregon, Washington, USC, Nebraska and PSU have all enhanced B1G matchups, prestige and football enthusiasm. UCLA...more like UNC, their great strengths are market, basketball and overall everything other than football, and they're respectable generally but not Elite in football. The only 2 that we can look at and say "no reasonable person expected this to work out in football" are Maryland and Rutgers.

So, let's examine Maryland and Rutgers. As Frank and other B1G fans talk about, those 2 schools juiced BTN revenues at a time when that was a huge portion of overall B1G revenues. They helped so much, or at least didn't dilute things at all, so much so that the B1G was able to actually come up with a half decent response to the OUT bombshell of 2021. The rest of the P5 were scrambling after that, the Big 12 barely survived, the Pac 12 didn't survive at all, and the ACC's tepid response was 3 far-distant schools that nobody watches on tv or in person. Looked at from that perspective, the Rutgers and Maryland moves were justifiable, even though neither has done much on the football field. The only change I'd make with hindsight is Missouri over Maryland, which, hey, I'm glad they didn't do that b/c any potential #14 to go with A&M wouldn't have been as solid for the SEC as Missouri has been. Maybe NC St? GT would have been a quality Missouri replacement, maybe 90% as good, but they wouldn't give us a 6m State that is completely dominated by one school, and they probably couldn't have gotten enough support from the original 10 schools after leaving the SEC and then refusing an offer to return a few years after they left. Also, the SEC needed new markets to get more $$ from ESPN...it probably would have been NC St, which would have complicated our UNC aspirations in a way that A&M didn't complicate things for us with Texas (I still think that 90% of the reason Texas moved to the SEC was so that they wouldn't drift to a distant #2 permanently in their own State, a not unreasonable concern after watching A&M's first decade in the SEC). Anyway, the B1G could have caused the SEC some consternation over the past decade while also ultimately strengthening their own product on the field with a quality program like Missouri instead of an also-ran like Maryland that just happened to be in a very slightly better location. And we all know that Missouri would have jumped at a B1G offer back in 2011. Today, I don't think that they'd leave the SEC for any reason, and their 6m people are now firmly in SEC country.

So...5 strong football additions, one that is ok but overall elite in all sports, and 2 that were poor choices. The B1G's biggest problem isn't their additions, but rather that, of their original 10, Michigan and OSU carry such an outsized role. Those 2 dominated the original 10, with only very rare instances of either being eclipsed, and not much churn from the bottom and middle tier at all really. Of the original SEC 10, 6 of them have won at least 1 National Title since 1998, and they've won about 2/3 of the titles of the past 20 years even with 2 straight to the B1g. New additions OUT have also each won one national title since 1998 and have proven to still be elite on the field after joining the SEC. A&M has also been a lot better on the field in the past 14 years than we were in about that same number of years in the Big 12. Missouri has been about the same as they were in the Big 12 and Big 8, some excellent years, some not so excellent, but overall very competitive. Of the B1G's 8 total additions since 1990, the only one that hasn't suffered a clear dropoff after joining is Oregon.

Perhaps the B1G's problem has not so much been the schools that they've added, but rather that they've brought in some great Brands and then strangled their resources so much so that those Brands lost some of their luster after joining. Hardly the kind of Welcome Mat they want to be putting out their for potential future ACC additions...

I hope that's not an academic similarity you're making. LOL

Why in the world would you think I was making an academics comparison. Read my post and the post I was replying to, we were talking about how recent B1G additions affected their on-field product. Even the B1G, with all of their supposed Academics focus, took Oregon over Stanford in 2023. Let that sink in for a moment, and then tell us how much importance they actually place on the Academics of new members. And isn’t it funny that 3 of the last 4 SEC additions were AAU, and the 4th has 8 National Titles?

Anybody who wants to know why I’m so skeptical of adding a bunch from the ACC, just look at the schools the SEC has added over the years.

My bad. But I'll note that my local adopted Huskies, as big a school as it is, got their Invite not mostly by athletics. I just thought it was ironic.
I'll move on.

Washington packs in 70k for games.
They finished #2 the year they were invited.
681-447-32 all time record
39 bowls
15 weeks at #1
Great location on a 7m pop state that they dominate
#4 in total Rose Bowls and Rose Bowl wins
84-35 record last 10 years, with 5 double digit wins seasons and a chance this year, too
5 top 12 finishes in past 9 years
Oh yeah, they’re also one of the best Academic Institutions in the world

They got added with Oregon, a school that is, ahem, a bit further down the Academics pecking order. You wanna know why Washington was added instead of Cal or Stanford? It wasn’t bc of their admittedly great Academics, bc Cal and Stanford are better.

Washington is a better version of Wisconsin. If they weren’t so dang far away, they’d have been very high on the SEC’s list, too.

Agreed. UW is a top 20 football program. Bottom of the top 20, but definitely there.

(11-07-2025 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

Yes, it would. It would be the same for the large land-grant state flagship public school Big Ten as well.

Square peg/round hole.

The ACC is actually a good fit for Notre Dame. As it now exists.

I think it still is, even if up to 6 of the regular suspects leave.

And at this point, the backfill's pretty obvious - USF, UConn, and Tulane. (I also think Colorado and Navy would be good adds...)

And life goes on.

(11-07-2025 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

The point Bullet is that the TV networks are paying for it. The conferences aren't adding anyone the networks aren't willing to pay for. Your dismissal of Kansas and promotion of Miami are two things they might very well disagree about.

Whoever does or doesn't wind up in the SEC the likeliest proponent for those making it will be ESPN and the likeliest detractor for them making it will be ESPN. The presidents will merely vote on those endorsed by ESPN. And that is simply reality because the SEC isn't adding anyone ESPN won't pay for us to have.

The same is true of FOX/NBC/CBS for the Big Ten. IMO, they have more issues only because of the number of networks that must agree. Otherwise, the reality is the same. Their presidents will vote on those the networks are willing to pay for.

Now when you can figure out what and why ESPN or FOX wants you can start a blog.

My money is that ESPN, and it is what I have argued consistently, will protect its revenue structure that it has taken 30 years to assemble. But in any event, their reasons trump your reasons, my reasons, and absolutely every other poster's reasons unless the reasoning coincides. Past history has shown that ESPN has been willing to pay a little extra on T3 rights to hold onto Texas and Kansas, willing to stay out of a court case the ACC fought so that no matter the outcome they could keep a hold on FSU and Clemson, and willing to bend over backwards on scheduling to keep Duke and North Carolina hyped in the same way they push certain SEC football brands.

ESPN promotes its own interests this way. The schools that never get hyped are usually not key to their profit structure. ESPN doesn't speak against them; they just don't push them. Whatever the SEC takes from the ACC will be something ESPN absolutely wants to keep.

The presidents love UNC, UVA, Stanford and Cal. I have no doubt they have expressed that to people like McMurphy. We already know that Fox, CBS and NBC don't share the presidents' feelings about Stanford and Cal. We'll see in the next few years how Fox and ESPN feel about UNC and UVA (and Duke). I don't see any of those as anything but an even number addition (#20 to go with a #19 like FSU). UNC and UVA good enough to be an even number, but not good enough on their own. I doubt Duke gets in as an even number.

I'm reminded of the anonymous quote from a Big East president when they were trying to reload. They were looking at Villanova and Navy. The president said of Navy, "Class, class, class." That's when I knew the Big East was doomed. "Class" doesn't pay the bills or get you viewed as a power conference. Otherwise everyone would be dying to have Rice and the military academies. The Big East was as out of touch with fiscal reality as the Pac 12 and both suffered the same fate. The Big East turned down a deal with ESPN that would have paid their football schools more than the ACC was making at the time.

Anybody ESPN or Fox wants in, they will be willing to pay for. They refused to pay for UH, UCF or Cincinnati to the Big 12 in 2016 when UT and OU were driving the conference's value, but did pay once they left. I just don't think they are willing to pay for a long term Risk game when they get judged by quarterly profits. And I don't think the long term Risk game of complete dominance pays off. Simply dominate the football brands and the money takes care of itself.

(11-07-2025 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

Yes, it would. It would be the same for the large land-grant state flagship public school Big Ten as well.

Square peg/round hole.

The ACC is actually a good fit for Notre Dame. As it now exists.

That's why the ACC may only lose one school (FSU) in the next round of realignment.

BTW, Notre Dame's most played opponents in the ACC are: Pittsburgh, Stanford, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Miami and BC.

(11-07-2025 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:29 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

Yes, it would. It would be the same for the large land-grant state flagship public school Big Ten as well.

Square peg/round hole.

The ACC is actually a good fit for Notre Dame. As it now exists.

That's why the ACC may only lose one school (FSU) in the next round of realignment.

BTW, Notre Dame's most played opponents in the ACC are: Pittsburgh, Stanford, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Miami and BC.

If it weren't for all the moves that NC has done (M7, and subsequent voting moves), and then there's all the "reporting" - if not for all that, I'd question if NC is actually leaving.

FSU and Clemson, on the other hand, it's pretty obvious that it's just a matter of when...

(11-07-2025 01:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

The point Bullet is that the TV networks are paying for it. The conferences aren't adding anyone the networks aren't willing to pay for. Your dismissal of Kansas and promotion of Miami are two things they might very well disagree about.

Whoever does or doesn't wind up in the SEC the likeliest proponent for those making it will be ESPN and the likeliest detractor for them making it will be ESPN. The presidents will merely vote on those endorsed by ESPN. And that is simply reality because the SEC isn't adding anyone ESPN won't pay for us to have.

The same is true of FOX/NBC/CBS for the Big Ten. IMO, they have more issues only because of the number of networks that must agree. Otherwise, the reality is the same. Their presidents will vote on those the networks are willing to pay for.

Now when you can figure out what and why ESPN or FOX wants you can start a blog.

My money is that ESPN, and it is what I have argued consistently, will protect its revenue structure that it has taken 30 years to assemble. But in any event, their reasons trump your reasons, my reasons, and absolutely every other poster's reasons unless the reasoning coincides. Past history has shown that ESPN has been willing to pay a little extra on T3 rights to hold onto Texas and Kansas, willing to stay out of a court case the ACC fought so that no matter the outcome they could keep a hold on FSU and Clemson, and willing to bend over backwards on scheduling to keep Duke and North Carolina hyped in the same way they push certain SEC football brands.

ESPN promotes its own interests this way. The schools that never get hyped are usually not key to their profit structure. ESPN doesn't speak against them; they just don't push them. Whatever the SEC takes from the ACC will be something ESPN absolutely wants to keep.

The presidents love UNC, UVA, Stanford and Cal. I have no doubt they have expressed that to people like McMurphy. We already know that Fox, CBS and NBC don't share the presidents' feelings about Stanford and Cal. We'll see in the next few years how Fox and ESPN feel about UNC and UVA (and Duke). I don't see any of those as anything but an even number addition (#20 to go with a #19 like FSU). UNC and UVA good enough to be an even number, but not good enough on their own. I doubt Duke gets in as an even number.

I'm reminded of the anonymous quote from a Big East president when they were trying to reload. They were looking at Villanova and Navy. The president said of Navy, "Class, class, class." That's when I knew the Big East was doomed. "Class" doesn't pay the bills or get you viewed as a power conference. Otherwise everyone would be dying to have Rice and the military academies. The Big East was as out of touch with fiscal reality as the Pac 12 and both suffered the same fate. The Big East turned down a deal with ESPN that would have paid their football schools more than the ACC was making at the time.

Anybody ESPN or Fox wants in, they will be willing to pay for. They refused to pay for UH, UCF or Cincinnati to the Big 12 in 2016 when UT and OU were driving the conference's value, but did pay once they left. I just don't think they are willing to pay for a long term Risk game when they get judged by quarterly profits. And I don't think the long term Risk game of complete dominance pays off. Simply dominate the football brands and the money takes care of itself.

You should stop thinking. There's no need to compare it to a long term risk game because it is one. ESPN has had a handle on the moves since they discovered the power of their own valuations of the product. The essentially have assembled the ACC and added to the SEC to get what they wanted for nearly the last 30 years. They aren't thinking quarterly at all besides they have been one of Disney's more profitable enterprises. They are looking to a future where they have a large stake in an expanded CFP and their own version of the hoops tournament, and neither of those are quarterly concerns.

This consolidation is being accelerated by the Alston ruling but had already begun because of the projected enrollment cliff spurring the top brands to use their recognized athletic names to form associations with other highly identifiable schools so they could keep their college experiences we call games on the tube to drive interest. The networks are using all of it to advance their organization of the profitable sports. If the ACC loses schools, especially their bell cows, it will be because they are now seeking a distinguishment beyond that of their current grouping. In fact, schools in states with multiple other so called power schools particularly needed a separation from the other schools within their states to maintain primacy. Texas and Texas A&M are now elevated above TCU, Texas Tech, and Baylor all of which must now share status with SMU and Houston. If UNC and Duke leave for the SEC or Big Ten, they have distinguished themselves in a grouping ranked above the one that N.C. State and Wake Forest are in. Should FSU wind up in the SEC or Big Ten and Miami not, Florida and FSU will have attained the same elevated status above their other state schools and privates. Though I have doubts as to the applicability of this to Stanford and Cal nevertheless U.S.C. and U.C.L.A. are now visibly competing on a different tier.

That desire to be recognized more often and seen with other major brands could well have an impact on the ACC, especially for their elite schools. Demographics, legal decisions, economic uncertainty are indicating the need for a more highly visible position publicly, which sports league do give, and the competition enrollment is aided, and revenue is generated through them.

And Bullet, the networks learned long ago that brands transcend just the sport they are recognized for.

(11-07-2025 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

The point Bullet is that the TV networks are paying for it. The conferences aren't adding anyone the networks aren't willing to pay for. Your dismissal of Kansas and promotion of Miami are two things they might very well disagree about.

Whoever does or doesn't wind up in the SEC the likeliest proponent for those making it will be ESPN and the likeliest detractor for them making it will be ESPN. The presidents will merely vote on those endorsed by ESPN. And that is simply reality because the SEC isn't adding anyone ESPN won't pay for us to have.

The same is true of FOX/NBC/CBS for the Big Ten. IMO, they have more issues only because of the number of networks that must agree. Otherwise, the reality is the same. Their presidents will vote on those the networks are willing to pay for.

Now when you can figure out what and why ESPN or FOX wants you can start a blog.

My money is that ESPN, and it is what I have argued consistently, will protect its revenue structure that it has taken 30 years to assemble. But in any event, their reasons trump your reasons, my reasons, and absolutely every other poster's reasons unless the reasoning coincides. Past history has shown that ESPN has been willing to pay a little extra on T3 rights to hold onto Texas and Kansas, willing to stay out of a court case the ACC fought so that no matter the outcome they could keep a hold on FSU and Clemson, and willing to bend over backwards on scheduling to keep Duke and North Carolina hyped in the same way they push certain SEC football brands.

ESPN promotes its own interests this way. The schools that never get hyped are usually not key to their profit structure. ESPN doesn't speak against them; they just don't push them. Whatever the SEC takes from the ACC will be something ESPN absolutely wants to keep.

The presidents love UNC, UVA, Stanford and Cal. I have no doubt they have expressed that to people like McMurphy. We already know that Fox, CBS and NBC don't share the presidents' feelings about Stanford and Cal. We'll see in the next few years how Fox and ESPN feel about UNC and UVA (and Duke). I don't see any of those as anything but an even number addition (#20 to go with a #19 like FSU). UNC and UVA good enough to be an even number, but not good enough on their own. I doubt Duke gets in as an even number.

I'm reminded of the anonymous quote from a Big East president when they were trying to reload. They were looking at Villanova and Navy. The president said of Navy, "Class, class, class." That's when I knew the Big East was doomed. "Class" doesn't pay the bills or get you viewed as a power conference. Otherwise everyone would be dying to have Rice and the military academies. The Big East was as out of touch with fiscal reality as the Pac 12 and both suffered the same fate. The Big East turned down a deal with ESPN that would have paid their football schools more than the ACC was making at the time.

Anybody ESPN or Fox wants in, they will be willing to pay for. They refused to pay for UH, UCF or Cincinnati to the Big 12 in 2016 when UT and OU were driving the conference's value, but did pay once they left. I just don't think they are willing to pay for a long term Risk game when they get judged by quarterly profits. And I don't think the long term Risk game of complete dominance pays off. Simply dominate the football brands and the money takes care of itself.

You should stop thinking. There's no need to compare it to a long term risk game because it is one. ESPN has had a handle on the moves since they discovered the power of their own valuations of the product. The essentially have assembled the ACC and added to the SEC to get what they wanted for nearly the last 30 years. They aren't thinking quarterly at all besides they have been one of Disney's more profitable enterprises. They are looking to a future where they have a large stake in an expanded CFP and their own version of the hoops tournament, and neither of those are quarterly concerns.

This consolidation is being accelerated by the Alston ruling but had already begun because of the projected enrollment cliff spurring the top brands to use their recognized athletic names to form associations with other highly identifiable schools so they could keep their college experiences we call games on the tube to drive interest. The networks are using all of it to advance their organization of the profitable sports. If the ACC loses schools, especially their bell cows, it will be because they are now seeking a distinguishment beyond that of their current grouping. In fact, schools in states with multiple other so called power schools particularly needed a separation from the other schools within their states to maintain primacy. Texas and Texas A&M are now elevated above TCU, Texas Tech, and Baylor all of which must now share status with SMU and Houston. If UNC and Duke leave for the SEC or Big Ten, they have distinguished themselves in a grouping ranked above the one that N.C. State and Wake Forest are in. Should FSU wind up in the SEC or Big Ten and Miami not, Florida and FSU will have attained the same elevated status above their other state schools and privates. Though I have doubts as to the applicability of this to Stanford and Cal nevertheless U.S.C. and U.C.L.A. are now visibly competing on a different tier.

That desire to be recognized more often and seen with other major brands could well have an impact on the ACC, especially for their elite schools. Demographics, legal decisions, economic uncertainty are indicating the need for a more highly visible position publicly, which sports league do give, and the competition enrollment is aided, and revenue is generated through them.

And Bullet, the networks learned long ago that brands transcend just the sport they are recognized for.

Texas always transcended those other schools (except Rice). UNC and Duke transcend everyone else in the ACC but UVA. Stanford still transcends just about every other school on the planet. A&M did leave partly to differentiate themselves, but the top 30-40 schools don't need that anymore than the University of Chicago or Emory University, who, as you know, has never lost a football game (I've seen the T-shirt bragging about it)!

UNC and UVA will leave for more money, not transcendance. Mississippi St. is not transcendant over North Carolina St. or Iowa St. because they are in the SEC. Nebraska couldn't even stay in the AAU despite joining the Big Ten.

(11-07-2025 01:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  Back to the OP's question, I see upside with certain additions. I see no upside if they go beyond 20, because nobody in the South is worth it but FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe North Carolina. Notre Dame would be just an awful fit. There are only so many schools who can justify P2 level payouts. And when you look at TV ratings and the structure of the TV contracts, the networks are paying for the big games and big brands. 50% of the SEC's media contract is for one game a week. The vast majority of the Big Ten's contract is for the 3 games on the networks. The bottom half of the games in the P2 would just generate M2 level payouts. They don't need more of that. They need more big games or they dilute the product. Putting Kansas or Baylor in the SEC doesn't make them suddenly worth twice as much to the TV networks.

The point Bullet is that the TV networks are paying for it. The conferences aren't adding anyone the networks aren't willing to pay for. Your dismissal of Kansas and promotion of Miami are two things they might very well disagree about.

Whoever does or doesn't wind up in the SEC the likeliest proponent for those making it will be ESPN and the likeliest detractor for them making it will be ESPN. The presidents will merely vote on those endorsed by ESPN. And that is simply reality because the SEC isn't adding anyone ESPN won't pay for us to have.

The same is true of FOX/NBC/CBS for the Big Ten. IMO, they have more issues only because of the number of networks that must agree. Otherwise, the reality is the same. Their presidents will vote on those the networks are willing to pay for.

Now when you can figure out what and why ESPN or FOX wants you can start a blog.

My money is that ESPN, and it is what I have argued consistently, will protect its revenue structure that it has taken 30 years to assemble. But in any event, their reasons trump your reasons, my reasons, and absolutely every other poster's reasons unless the reasoning coincides. Past history has shown that ESPN has been willing to pay a little extra on T3 rights to hold onto Texas and Kansas, willing to stay out of a court case the ACC fought so that no matter the outcome they could keep a hold on FSU and Clemson, and willing to bend over backwards on scheduling to keep Duke and North Carolina hyped in the same way they push certain SEC football brands.

ESPN promotes its own interests this way. The schools that never get hyped are usually not key to their profit structure. ESPN doesn't speak against them; they just don't push them. Whatever the SEC takes from the ACC will be something ESPN absolutely wants to keep.

The presidents love UNC, UVA, Stanford and Cal. I have no doubt they have expressed that to people like McMurphy. We already know that Fox, CBS and NBC don't share the presidents' feelings about Stanford and Cal. We'll see in the next few years how Fox and ESPN feel about UNC and UVA (and Duke). I don't see any of those as anything but an even number addition (#20 to go with a #19 like FSU). UNC and UVA good enough to be an even number, but not good enough on their own. I doubt Duke gets in as an even number.

I'm reminded of the anonymous quote from a Big East president when they were trying to reload. They were looking at Villanova and Navy. The president said of Navy, "Class, class, class." That's when I knew the Big East was doomed. "Class" doesn't pay the bills or get you viewed as a power conference. Otherwise everyone would be dying to have Rice and the military academies. The Big East was as out of touch with fiscal reality as the Pac 12 and both suffered the same fate. The Big East turned down a deal with ESPN that would have paid their football schools more than the ACC was making at the time.

Anybody ESPN or Fox wants in, they will be willing to pay for. They refused to pay for UH, UCF or Cincinnati to the Big 12 in 2016 when UT and OU were driving the conference's value, but did pay once they left. I just don't think they are willing to pay for a long term Risk game when they get judged by quarterly profits. And I don't think the long term Risk game of complete dominance pays off. Simply dominate the football brands and the money takes care of itself.

You should stop thinking. There's no need to compare it to a long term risk game because it is one. ESPN has had a handle on the moves since they discovered the power of their own valuations of the product. The essentially have assembled the ACC and added to the SEC to get what they wanted for nearly the last 30 years. They aren't thinking quarterly at all besides they have been one of Disney's more profitable enterprises. They are looking to a future where they have a large stake in an expanded CFP and their own version of the hoops tournament, and neither of those are quarterly concerns.

This consolidation is being accelerated by the Alston ruling but had already begun because of the projected enrollment cliff spurring the top brands to use their recognized athletic names to form associations with other highly identifiable schools so they could keep their college experiences we call games on the tube to drive interest. The networks are using all of it to advance their organization of the profitable sports. If the ACC loses schools, especially their bell cows, it will be because they are now seeking a distinguishment beyond that of their current grouping. In fact, schools in states with multiple other so called power schools particularly needed a separation from the other schools within their states to maintain primacy. Texas and Texas A&M are now elevated above TCU, Texas Tech, and Baylor all of which must now share status with SMU and Houston. If UNC and Duke leave for the SEC or Big Ten, they have distinguished themselves in a grouping ranked above the one that N.C. State and Wake Forest are in. Should FSU wind up in the SEC or Big Ten and Miami not, Florida and FSU will have attained the same elevated status above their other state schools and privates. Though I have doubts as to the applicability of this to Stanford and Cal nevertheless U.S.C. and U.C.L.A. are now visibly competing on a different tier.

That desire to be recognized more often and seen with other major brands could well have an impact on the ACC, especially for their elite schools. Demographics, legal decisions, economic uncertainty are indicating the need for a more highly visible position publicly, which sports league do give, and the competition enrollment is aided, and revenue is generated through them.

And Bullet, the networks learned long ago that brands transcend just the sport they are recognized for.

Texas always transcended those other schools (except Rice). UNC and Duke transcend everyone else in the ACC but UVA. Stanford still transcends just about every other school on the planet. A&M did leave partly to differentiate themselves, but the top 30-40 schools don't need that anymore than the University of Chicago or Emory University, who, as you know, has never lost a football game (I've seen the T-shirt bragging about it)!

UNC and UVA will leave for more money, not transcendance. Mississippi St. is not transcendant over North Carolina St. or Iowa St. because they are in the SEC. Nebraska couldn't even stay in the AAU despite joining the Big Ten.

Outside of the Ivy schools, Duke and Stanford, I believe those working the enrollment offices are beginning to realize otherwise. It's not that they lack for bright students, it's that their undergraduate programs lack for the numbers so that enrollment actually helps to support research. Emory always has the Hospital and the CDC and the Federal money to cover that, but all of the major state Flagships have building going on to increase enrollment. Their approach to what is upon them with the Baby Bust is to grow larger at the expense of smaller state schools and that is part of a seldome talked about need for most state governments to beging to shrink the overhead they have for maintaining a broad higher educational system with many entry points and to streamline it for efficiency. It began a decade or so ago and is accelerating. One of the favored methods thus far is the use of large state schools as an umbrella and the downsizing is presently coming in the form of the reduction of administrative positions as smaller regional schools, many tasked with just a couple of disciplines like nursing and education get brought under that large school umbrella. However there are continued closures going on with branch campuses once maintained by smaller state schools. The point is none of it is happening in a vacuum. It's all interrelated. And the use of undergraduate enrollment to fund research is just getting started. Sports consolidation for the student aged high school graduates who know they need a BA or BS just to get halfway decent job is a great way of snagging those enrollees. The vast majority of them will not be going on for a Master's degree, let alone a PHD. IMO, it's a healthy step when your government is 42 trillion in debt, and defense spending because of unrest globally is going to have to step it up.

(11-07-2025 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN has had a handle on the moves since they discovered the power of their own valuations of the product. The essentially have assembled the ACC and added to the SEC to get what they wanted for nearly the last 30 years.

The SEC is not run by ESPN.

The SEC will not make a generations-long decision because of its current media partner.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of its member institutions.

That may coincide with the best interests of ESPN -- as it did with Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma. But if there is a situation where ESPN wants the SEC to bring in a school that wouldn't benefit the league, the league will stand firm.

It's a matter of supply and demand: There is only one SEC, but there are plenty of networks and services begging for live content, and the SEC has proven itself time and again to be king in that realm.

(The ACC has never had that luxury. They could be bullied because they needed the ACC Network, and they needed to keep the league together -- so they needed to cow-tow to the Mouse.)

(11-07-2025 02:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The point Bullet is that the TV networks are paying for it. The conferences aren't adding anyone the networks aren't willing to pay for. Your dismissal of Kansas and promotion of Miami are two things they might very well disagree about.

Whoever does or doesn't wind up in the SEC the likeliest proponent for those making it will be ESPN and the likeliest detractor for them making it will be ESPN. The presidents will merely vote on those endorsed by ESPN. And that is simply reality because the SEC isn't adding anyone ESPN won't pay for us to have.

The same is true of FOX/NBC/CBS for the Big Ten. IMO, they have more issues only because of the number of networks that must agree. Otherwise, the reality is the same. Their presidents will vote on those the networks are willing to pay for.

Now when you can figure out what and why ESPN or FOX wants you can start a blog.

My money is that ESPN, and it is what I have argued consistently, will protect its revenue structure that it has taken 30 years to assemble. But in any event, their reasons trump your reasons, my reasons, and absolutely every other poster's reasons unless the reasoning coincides. Past history has shown that ESPN has been willing to pay a little extra on T3 rights to hold onto Texas and Kansas, willing to stay out of a court case the ACC fought so that no matter the outcome they could keep a hold on FSU and Clemson, and willing to bend over backwards on scheduling to keep Duke and North Carolina hyped in the same way they push certain SEC football brands.

ESPN promotes its own interests this way. The schools that never get hyped are usually not key to their profit structure. ESPN doesn't speak against them; they just don't push them. Whatever the SEC takes from the ACC will be something ESPN absolutely wants to keep.

The presidents love UNC, UVA, Stanford and Cal. I have no doubt they have expressed that to people like McMurphy. We already know that Fox, CBS and NBC don't share the presidents' feelings about Stanford and Cal. We'll see in the next few years how Fox and ESPN feel about UNC and UVA (and Duke). I don't see any of those as anything but an even number addition (#20 to go with a #19 like FSU). UNC and UVA good enough to be an even number, but not good enough on their own. I doubt Duke gets in as an even number.

I'm reminded of the anonymous quote from a Big East president when they were trying to reload. They were looking at Villanova and Navy. The president said of Navy, "Class, class, class." That's when I knew the Big East was doomed. "Class" doesn't pay the bills or get you viewed as a power conference. Otherwise everyone would be dying to have Rice and the military academies. The Big East was as out of touch with fiscal reality as the Pac 12 and both suffered the same fate. The Big East turned down a deal with ESPN that would have paid their football schools more than the ACC was making at the time.

Anybody ESPN or Fox wants in, they will be willing to pay for. They refused to pay for UH, UCF or Cincinnati to the Big 12 in 2016 when UT and OU were driving the conference's value, but did pay once they left. I just don't think they are willing to pay for a long term Risk game when they get judged by quarterly profits. And I don't think the long term Risk game of complete dominance pays off. Simply dominate the football brands and the money takes care of itself.

You should stop thinking. There's no need to compare it to a long term risk game because it is one. ESPN has had a handle on the moves since they discovered the power of their own valuations of the product. The essentially have assembled the ACC and added to the SEC to get what they wanted for nearly the last 30 years. They aren't thinking quarterly at all besides they have been one of Disney's more profitable enterprises. They are looking to a future where they have a large stake in an expanded CFP and their own version of the hoops tournament, and neither of those are quarterly concerns.

This consolidation is being accelerated by the Alston ruling but had already begun because of the projected enrollment cliff spurring the top brands to use their recognized athletic names to form associations with other highly identifiable schools so they could keep their college experiences we call games on the tube to drive interest. The networks are using all of it to advance their organization of the profitable sports. If the ACC loses schools, especially their bell cows, it will be because they are now seeking a distinguishment beyond that of their current grouping. In fact, schools in states with multiple other so called power schools particularly needed a separation from the other schools within their states to maintain primacy. Texas and Texas A&M are now elevated above TCU, Texas Tech, and Baylor all of which must now share status with SMU and Houston. If UNC and Duke leave for the SEC or Big Ten, they have distinguished themselves in a grouping ranked above the one that N.C. State and Wake Forest are in. Should FSU wind up in the SEC or Big Ten and Miami not, Florida and FSU will have attained the same elevated status above their other state schools and privates. Though I have doubts as to the applicability of this to Stanford and Cal nevertheless U.S.C. and U.C.L.A. are now visibly competing on a different tier.

That desire to be recognized more often and seen with other major brands could well have an impact on the ACC, especially for their elite schools. Demographics, legal decisions, economic uncertainty are indicating the need for a more highly visible position publicly, which sports league do give, and the competition enrollment is aided, and revenue is generated through them.

And Bullet, the networks learned long ago that brands transcend just the sport they are recognized for.

Texas always transcended those other schools (except Rice). UNC and Duke transcend everyone else in the ACC but UVA. Stanford still transcends just about every other school on the planet. A&M did leave partly to differentiate themselves, but the top 30-40 schools don't need that anymore than the University of Chicago or Emory University, who, as you know, has never lost a football game (I've seen the T-shirt bragging about it)!

UNC and UVA will leave for more money, not transcendance. Mississippi St. is not transcendant over North Carolina St. or Iowa St. because they are in the SEC. Nebraska couldn't even stay in the AAU despite joining the Big Ten.

Outside of the Ivy schools, Duke and Stanford, I believe those working the enrollment offices are beginning to realize otherwise. It's not that they lack for bright students, it's that their undergraduate programs lack for the numbers so that enrollment actually helps to support research. Emory always has the Hospital and the CDC and the Federal money to cover that, but all of the major state Flagships have building going on to increase enrollment. Their approach to what is upon them with the Baby Bust is to grow larger at the expense of smaller state schools and that is part of a seldome talked about need for most state governments to beging to shrink the overhead they have for maintaining a broad higher educational system with many entry points and to streamline it for efficiency. It began a decade or so ago and is accelerating. One of the favored methods thus far is the use of large state schools as an umbrella and the downsizing is presently coming in the form of the reduction of administrative positions as smaller regional schools, many tasked with just a couple of disciplines like nursing and education get brought under that large school umbrella. However there are continued closures going on with branch campuses once maintained by smaller state schools. The point is none of it is happening in a vacuum. It's all interrelated. And the use of undergraduate enrollment to fund research is just getting started. Sports consolidation for the student aged high school graduates who know they need a BA or BS just to get halfway decent job is a great way of snagging those enrollees. The vast majority of them will not be going on for a Master's degree, let alone a PHD. IMO, it's a healthy step when your government is 42 trillion in debt, and defense spending because of unrest globally is going to have to step it up.

That's not the reality in most of the big state flagships. Maybe in states like West Virginia with declining populations. But it is tougher than ever to get into schools like Texas, Texas A&M, Georgia and Florida. UNC, NCSU, Clemson, South Carolina and FSU are pretty tough to get into these days. My son went through the admissions process just a few years ago. Even Illinois is getting tougher to get into despite the slow or negative growth and declines at other Illinois schools. Now what you describe is a HUGE factor at the regional schools.

(11-07-2025 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 12:35 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 11:01 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 09:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 05:55 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  I hope that's not an academic similarity you're making. LOL

Why in the world would you think I was making an academics comparison. Read my post and the post I was replying to, we were talking about how recent B1G additions affected their on-field product. Even the B1G, with all of their supposed Academics focus, took Oregon over Stanford in 2023. Let that sink in for a moment, and then tell us how much importance they actually place on the Academics of new members. And isn’t it funny that 3 of the last 4 SEC additions were AAU, and the 4th has 8 National Titles?

Anybody who wants to know why I’m so skeptical of adding a bunch from the ACC, just look at the schools the SEC has added over the years.

My bad. But I'll note that my local adopted Huskies, as big a school as it is, got their Invite not mostly by athletics. I just thought it was ironic.
I'll move on.

Washington packs in 70k for games.
They finished #2 the year they were invited.
681-447-32 all time record
39 bowls
15 weeks at #1
Great location on a 7m pop state that they dominate
#4 in total Rose Bowls and Rose Bowl wins
84-35 record last 10 years, with 5 double digit wins seasons and a chance this year, too
5 top 12 finishes in past 9 years
Oh yeah, they’re also one of the best Academic Institutions in the world

They got added with Oregon, a school that is, ahem, a bit further down the Academics pecking order. You wanna know why Washington was added instead of Cal or Stanford? It wasn’t bc of their admittedly great Academics, bc Cal and Stanford are better.

Washington is a better version of Wisconsin. If they weren’t so dang far away, they’d have been very high on the SEC’s list, too.

Agreed. UW is a top 20 football program. Bottom of the top 20, but definitely there.

After their Natty game, they immediately lost the coach who brought them those couple of nice years. Maybe they weren't committed enough to football, to outbid Alabama. But they've since rebounded nicely.
Husky stadium is a very nice experience.

(11-07-2025 05:55 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 01:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN has had a handle on the moves since they discovered the power of their own valuations of the product. The essentially have assembled the ACC and added to the SEC to get what they wanted for nearly the last 30 years.

The SEC is not run by ESPN.

The SEC will not make a generations-long decision because of its current media partner.

The SEC will do what is in the best interest of its member institutions.

That may coincide with the best interests of ESPN -- as it did with Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma. But if there is a situation where ESPN wants the SEC to bring in a school that wouldn't benefit the league, the league will stand firm.

It's a matter of supply and demand: There is only one SEC, but there are plenty of networks and services begging for live content, and the SEC has proven itself time and again to be king in that realm.

(The ACC has never had that luxury. They could be bullied because they needed the ACC Network, and they needed to keep the league together -- so they needed to cow-tow to the Mouse.)

I am not fond of any kind of media monopolies. Based on some past blunders, I wouldn’t call all of Disney/ESPN media sports innovations as being impressive. They prioritize their favorites. While coverage is contracted, their flexibility as to where to focus have been rather immense. It certainly impacts the rank and file of the SEC. The referee controversies are, in my option, are not divorced from their expectations.

ESPN should not be picking SEC members or members for other conferences, certainly including the the ACC. In 3, 2, 1 my remarks will be labeled hooey or something, it doesn’t matter, and won’t alter this long held opinion. In the age of NIL, portals, looking away from ominous behaviors, and financial absurdities and disparities, from taxation levels to unaccountable antitrust clouds moving through the green lights, is the norm.

My advocacy with all this centered on FSU and Clemson having a right to leave the ACC under reasonable circumstances. There was a settlement. Where they go, if they go, I have no emotional preference, but logic suggests the SEC. Both schools went through hefty expense and nasty criticisms, particularly with FSU, for their efforts. Their labors and expense get dismissed, while others are to be anointed because of it without tossing in a dime outside the ACC lawsuits; and even the rebellious two members were having to pay their share against themselves. Thus, who does the SEC (ESPN?) want to invite first, and maybe only? North Carolina? Virginia? Good grief, Duke?

As Baylen may say: