(11-09-2025 12:23 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (11-08-2025 11:13 PM)JRsec Wrote: (11-08-2025 09:19 PM)bullet Wrote: (11-08-2025 02:19 PM)JRsec Wrote: You are totally out of touch with reality. They always go for equitable scheduling, not for brand scheduling. Nobody wants to be at a disadvantage. And if you add two weak programs there is no way mathematically to avoid diluting schedules.
Quote:Bullet you are unhinged for some reason. First, nobody is getting an unbalanced schedule, if anything it would be more balanced. Brands sell and we sell product in the Fall / Winter /Spring-Summer. We'll see who is out of touch with reality when it is done. This is the 4th realignment cycle, and I haven't missed on much in 30 years of it. What has been proposed has been echoed in a lot of places where the SEC tests its ideas with the public. And I hear it in my circles.
Just listen to yourself. Virginia is currently in the CFP rankings. North Carolina is a no brainer addition for both the SEC and Big Ten and is usually competitive in all sports. Duke is coveted by both conferences for academics and massive Winter brand all of which makes them acceptable in a multiple team add. Are we going to disagree about FSU too?
I don't post to be liked. That's why populist ideas aren't my bag. We have a boat load of vox populi posters here who believe if their buddies agree with them they are right. It's mostly due to the age of our posters shifting to the younger ones. Social media encourages group think. This is the only social media I do. No Facebook, no X, none of that crap. I'm interested in what is real, and what people who are in the know actually think.
Nothing has changed in the way of the SEC's plans since 1991 and the only hiccup was Missouri and that wasn't bad, and as a 2nd new market made sense when we couldn't just pull Oklahoma.
North Carolina for the SEC has been in the SEC's list of desires since 1991, or a little before. If you have North Carolina, then Virginia makes sense, and for the same reasons. Virginia won the national title in Basketball a few years back and is in the running for the CFP this year and is stellar in baseball most seasons. How many in the SEC already can lay claim to that kind of recency of success? If you want to disagree about Duke that's fine. I at least understand why people could/would feel that way. But stop and use the noodle and ask what Clemson brings to us that we don't already have except for half of the viewers in South Carolina, a state of 5 million. Now if I was just touting my personal preferences we would have Clemson as I think they fit us naturally, but objectively they don't add as much as North Carolina and Virginia, though they are a brand multiplier. And, with Clemson the SEC has the luxury of waiting to see if we grow more. Florida State is another no brainer if we can bring them in. But they are a no brainer because they give the SEC market control of Florida and that is more important than just being a brand multiplier.
I see nothing unreasonable about those selections, they all add in a collection of ways, and frankly nobody can touch our football product no matter who we may add now. Basketball dominance is within our grasp and three of those four add to that both in a deep history of championships, brand identity, and a contrast that makes all of our product look better.
Reality is in objectivity. But don't hold your breath waiting for me to change my take. I see solid rational reasons for those additions, admit there would be ambiguity over Duke, and am not going to do anything because the young folk disagree.
You ought to use some objectivity in reading your own posts. On this one topic your are really obnoxious, being really rude to anyone who questions your paradigm. I don’t know why you are different from normal on this topic.
Objective is realizing there is more to building a stronger conference than just football, which we have in ample supply. Florida State, North Carolina and Virginia would be the best offensive and defensive moves we can make, and Duke is the academic prize that might tie it all together.
What is obnoxious is when people who haven't lived with it for thirty years try to tell you that what you have lived around and know isn't so because of something they read on a blog, or because something they experienced in another conference didn't run that way, or because of something a beat writer is saying.
If those guys had been right Texas and A&M would have joined the Big Ten or PAC 12, North Carolina State and Virginia Tech would have been in the SEC and North Carolina and Virginia would absolutely prefer the Big Ten next time around. If disagreeing with that nonsense makes me obnoxious then I'm obnoxious because all of it has in time been proven ridiculous. We'll see about UNC and UVa. Maybe they'll stay put. But we both know that only happens if the ACC remains secure and the lawsuit and settlement are strong evidence to the contrary.
Slive and then Sankey said we aren't looking to expand, we are happy with what we have, but we will be aware of changes around us, and will be nimble in response. Slive did a solid job of building the conference and putting petty differences to rest. Sankey has done a good job of building on that foundation, and a better job of bing nimble and proactive. They know the objectives, the presidents have already discussed and determined their positions on possible candidates, and their desires follow very closely what Kramer's presidents determined would be the components of the best possible future SEC. I simply do see a deviation. If I think someone is wrong I say so. If I'm wrong they get credit for their position when the proof is in. Some have responded in kind when I was correct. Most just try to pretend they never held the opposing stance. Why not call those obnoxious?
It'll all come out in the wash whenever that next cycle gets run.
I ran down that "ECU to the SEC" thread that was active from 2004 to 2021 the other day, was surprised to see some of the comments about my Aggies in there. It was interesting to see how people's thoughts evolved with the years.
You know that I've been quite skeptical of UVA, and I don't think I've hidden my reasons, but I have to admit that there has been a LOT of smoke around a UVA+UNC combo. However, there's also been a lot of smoke around FSU + Clemson. I've tried building some momentum for Miami, and I think that their clear ability to vault to the top of everybody's tv sets in good years warrant a serious discussion about them, but it's not hard to see our Presidents looking at everything that UVA would bring us for the long term and decide that they'd prefer UVA. However, I think it was bullet who said above that it's a lot easier to accept UVA + UNC if they're balanced with Big Football Brands in FSU and Clemson, schools that have proven time and time again that they can pull lots of eyeballs with SEC matchups. If we were to grab those 4, then the B1G's only credible response would be Miami + ND, and their most likely response when ND turns them down again would be Miami + Stanford. Advantage SEC, again.
I know that you've talked about Duke, and it's impossible to completely rule them out, but it's hard to see them joining at the same time as UVA. Duke and Kansas are likely to be kept stashed in the Big 12/ACC unless and until we get to a point where Basketball can really move the financial needle.
And therein resides the rub. Which school provides the least value to the SEC. Is it Duke or is it Clemson. If Duke cements North Carolina and Virginia to the SEC and delivers a massive basketball brand and an extremely valuable research school what does Clemson bring? They bring a brand multiplier for football on par with 4 or 5 middle of the road SEC schools and 2.5 million more South Carolinians. Duke brings a sizeable national following and an entry into the New England hoops market.
From your post you are conceding that you recognize the value that the flagships of Virginia and North Carolina bring to the SEC and that you grasp like most that Florida State giving the SEC control in the Florida market is a serious priority for the SEC, and through them for ESPN, so that the ad rates are maximized for one of the top two states in the profile of the SEC, Texas being secured as the other.
That leaves a single decision. Which is the rationale position? That Clemson valuable as they may be, is not as valuable as Duke which may cement the two key properties the SEC seeks into our conference and do so while providing benefits which are uniquely a part of their academic success, as well as a reach into a market the SEC otherwise doesn't penetrate because of interest in their basketball in New England where they draw from the best students as part of their enrollment. Or is it more rationale to declare that only football should be considered where SEC membership is concerned and that therefore the addition of the other half of the small market in South Carolina is more important than what Duke would bring?
Of course, the first position would require you think like a president who values the academic benefits of having such schools in their conference as colleagues and a commissioner who is interested in what provides the SEC with dominance in all major revenue sports because that maximizes revenue in all 3 major sports seasons, or to sincerely believe that only football holds any value for a conference supremely rich in it already?
Which do you find more openminded and which more closeminded and dogmatic?
For expecting our leadership to look after the best total outcome for our schools and sports offerings while looking to maximize revenue in the Fall, Winter, and Spring/Summer I've been labeled obnoxious and closeminded.
But if you believe only football holds value and that half of a small state's carriage is more important in a football only decision, you are the enlightened and broad minded one poster?
I find the analysis between the two positions to be so overwhelmingly in favor of UNC and UVa as to be ridiculous to debate, the pushing of that position indefensible in terms of actual value, and that it is the more narrowminded and obnoxious, and the accusation leveled against my position to be a projection. The issue here is simple: Duke or Clemson?
Maybe it's why my preference, and I've stated such, is to invite North Carolina, Duke, Clemson and Florida State. But I've also stated that I believe the conference will want North Carolina, Virginia, and would take Duke to get them, and that we and ESPN need Florida State in the SEC for the reasons I've stated countless times.
Frank is the one who said think like a conference president and I'm the one who said think like a CEO. Well, those two come together on this decision. The presidents want the academic associations. the CEO wants to protect the best brands but the best brands for reaching their sports markets.
Two of those decisions are easy: North Carolina & Florida State. The next question to be decided is do you want market coverage? I would assume ESPN would like to keep a strong presence in Virginia. Add Virginia as that will appeal to the presidents as well. Then the final question is do you add a major national Basketball brand in Duke and secure markets in North Carolina and interest in them from New England and across the nation, or do you want a strong regional football brand in Clemson? Remember the Big Ten will have interest in Duke simply because they are an academic giant and major procurer of research grants. The Big Ten won't have much interest in Clemson or in the state of South Carolina. North Carolina and Virginia will want to keep their close association with Duke. North Carolina also likes their association with Clemson.
If we just move to 20 you have to make a decision. If the SEC were to surprise folks and ESPN agrees to move to 22 then you can have them all, and likely Kansas.
At 20 I believe Duke will be in and Clemson out if the presidents take Virginia and I consider that much more likely given ESPN's desire to hang onto the markets that comprise their revenue model.
I don't know if we go to 22 or not, but in this case, perhaps as some suggested in 2021, it is a magic number. It solves the SEC's conundrum and makes their decision more universally accepted, and frankly it assists the Big Ten in adding a couple to the West to help with travel and perhaps picking up Miami and Georgia Tech which are both easy to access.
Now who has considered the angles here and which position is dogmatic? And I still believe that Clemson is the most SEC like school out there.
I would love to see us go to 22. I see that number beneficial to the Big Ten's desires as well. And Georgia Tech and Miami won't hurt our markets or revenue stream.
We'll see. But football only is a canard of the press, hyped initially by some commissioners who like some smoke to cover their actions, and the goals of the SEC have been very specific for a long, long time. Now we wait.
/
Where is the upside to SEC expansion?
