(11-08-2025 08:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 08:02 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 10:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So out of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State and Duke the only one which arguably would be a drag on SEC football is Duke.

Seriously? The best football conference in history would not be dragged down by Virginia and North Carolina programs that have combined for two ranked seasons since Boston College joined the ACC over 20 years ago???

it only makes sense to add NC/VA. they expand the map without outrunning the footprint. FSu UM, Clemson won'f increase eyeballs enough to matter.

That said FSU, UM, Clemson likely make sense for B10 at reduced rate like Or/WA got.

Personally, I don't understand why the desire to establish monopolies. Lets say the Big 10 invite FSU, Miami, Clemson, and GT. Does that really impact the SEC? Are SEC fans going to stop watching because Miami changed their logo and plays Rutgers and UCLA?

It makes SENSE for the SEC to grab UNC, UVA, and stop. It doesn't matter if the Big 10.has more schools. That won't impact the payment per team or playoff chances. But right now the SEC product is top tier. Adding two new markets is an enhancement.

Adding 6 schools simply to prevent competition is risky. This would be a major drop in SOS, there would be teams that almost never play each other in most sports, and it's a major culture change.

Even adding UNC and UVA has risks. UNC has proven they cannot even be an elite ACC football program. They are not going to start playing Alabama and start going undefeated every year.

(11-09-2025 10:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 08:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 08:02 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 10:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So out of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State and Duke the only one which arguably would be a drag on SEC football is Duke.

Seriously? The best football conference in history would not be dragged down by Virginia and North Carolina programs that have combined for two ranked seasons since Boston College joined the ACC over 20 years ago???

it only makes sense to add NC/VA. they expand the map without outrunning the footprint. FSu UM, Clemson won'f increase eyeballs enough to matter.

That said FSU, UM, Clemson likely make sense for B10 at reduced rate like Or/WA got.

Personally, I don't understand why the desire to establish monopolies. Lets say the Big 10 invite FSU, Miami, Clemson, and GT. Does that really impact the SEC? Are SEC fans going to stop watching because Miami changed their logo and plays Rutgers and UCLA?

It makes SENSE for the SEC to grab UNC, UVA, and stop. It doesn't matter if the Big 10.has more schools. That won't impact the payment per team or playoff chances. But right now the SEC product is top tier. Adding two new markets is an enhancement.

Adding 6 schools simply to prevent competition is risky. This would be a major drop in SOS, there would be teams that almost never play each other in most sports, and it's a major culture change.

Even adding UNC and UVA has risks. UNC has proven they cannot even be an elite ACC football program. They are not going to start playing Alabama and start going undefeated every year.

You work for Uncle Sam right? Leave business to business folk. The SEC format is working wonderfully. First maxim even for the military is "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

It ain't broke. It works great, and the SEC will keep working it. And right now, I think the number is 4, have shut down one of your troll threads, and am not as concerned over my position on the matter as you feign to be. The SEC will be fine. You should worry about your allegedly souring relationship with the Big Ten.

(11-08-2025 02:51 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 10:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  So drop Alabama-Georgia; Alabama-LSU; Georgia-Texas; Florida-Tennessee, so you can pair those schools with UNC and UVA?

You significantly dilute the schedule with just those two. Paired with FSU and Clemson, its fine. But alone, no way.

That's a red herring. With 20 schools and setting your own scheduling you pick up one of those games a year. They can be substituted on someone's schedule for Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State and somebody gets FSU. This is the lamest and most ridiculous line of reasoning ever. If anything, all of the leaders would be happy at the end of the day to have one conference game that was middling to weak. Hell, how many does the average Big Ten schedule have on them? You do realize that by going to 9 conference games with 20 schools that even if you counted them as weak games on the schedule that they would still be better draws than one of the replaced buy games, and if ESPN is paying for them they are not a drag on the media revenue (which they aren't anyway due to the market addition), and they all would add to the ticket price and concessions for anyone's home game over that of a buy game.

An argument can be made that any school the SEC invites that has a large and intense fanbase and has a solid and competent financial base of support would probably not be a middling to weak program most of the time. Look at Vanderbilt and Mississippi St now. The money, exposure and just being in the best conference in the nation in football, baseball and quite possibly basketball moving forward just elevates all schools to a level where none are weak other than in down years. It's a new age of NFL-like parity in the SEC. And it just means more.

That's absolutely correct! Brands, Markets, Academics, Competitiveness in all sports, it's all exactly what the Presidents and Sankey are looking for in new members. The same mentality was operative for the Texas and Oklahoma additions, for Texas A&M, and even Missouri, and was absolutely there for Arkansas in 1991-2. South Carolina was not immune to success either when they joined. You couldn't and wouldn't call any of them a bad addition or one the conference regrets. If they add North Carolina and Virginia, regardless of what some may think, they will have checked all of the boxes. Attendance, especially that which is impaired only by the capacity of the facilities, really only impacts the home revenue of those schools.

What's more the diaspora of UVa and UNC graduates into New England and New York and really all over, coupled with their hoops brand in areas which are basketball crazy only adds to their market reach, particularly in areas not normally reached by the SEC. Duke simply gloms on another national brand for that sport. The key however remains the 4th being F.S.U. to maintain control over the Florida market for ESPN, gain it for the SEC, and as a brand multiplier in football, though FSU adds to all sports as well. Whether it is that 4, or UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU we stock winners into our conference either way. The first one however does add more in the way of market reach.

We agree here, but to elaborate more narrowly on my point I'm going to use an analogy of something that would never happen and which I am not advocating. This is for illustrative purposes only, but if the SEC were to only add the ECU Pirates from the State of North Carolina, and again the SEC is not inviting them, and I am not saying they should even be considered, but if the SEC did, the Pirates immediately become the most valuable college athletic brand in that state based on short term speculation alone. I'm sure that breaks the brains of Tar Heels and Blue Devils, but that is now the power of the SEC's brand, value and influence.

The SEC not only has the power to chose kings, but to be kingmakers. The truth is if you have a large and intense fanbase, a strong athletic financial outlook, and possess a college football culture that is in it to win it, you would succeed enough in the SEC. The SEC would also be even stronger because of such inclusion, up to whatever cap of conference members that now exists in the new SEC professional collegiate landscape.

I don't think so. Louisville in recent years has usually had a better football program than Kentucky. And while A&M probably (and TCU definitely) were usually better football programs than Texas from 2014-2023, Texas still had far and away the most value. The SEC label makes you more valuable, but it wouldn't overcome the general advantages UNC and NCSU have over ECU.

Now it might be enough to push VPI over UVA or NCSU over UNC (in football only).

(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.

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.
[/quote]

I will say its pretty certain the SEC takes at least 2 more and really likely the P2 take 6 more, so we will find out in the next one to 3 years who the networks are willing to fund. And if they both go to 24, that will probably shake out pretty quickly too. I just dont see how the latter makes financial sense given how much the SEC and Big Ten make now. It might have 10 years ago.

Now personally, I would prefer the Big Ten stop and the SEC only add two. I really don't like to see schools get left behind.

It took a long time for TCU, UH and SMU to get back in the power structure. Rice just isn't going to make it. They are too small.

Cincinnati made it back, but they weren't in it very long before they got kicked out. UConn, USF for a short time and Washington St. and Oregon St. for a long time were in it. Washington St. seems unlikely to make it back in. They're a big enough school in a big state, but fans don't seem willing to travel out to rural east Washington. Oregon St. is actually bigger than Oregon.

Bullet, I currently can't correct the quotes in your post to clean them up. Keyboard issue with the brackets for me.

Just quote this one if you want to do so.

The SEC isn't just about the money. They SEC from all lines, save currently media revenue, makes more than the Big Ten does for the same athletic endeavors. The SEC obviously faces a stronger need of revenue since Alston. But it's long-range strategic planning has always included simply dominating its own region of the country. They will go after North Carolina and Virginia to attain that objective. ESPN will welcome it as it lines up with ESPN securing its revenue model and its Winter programming anchors. I suspect that is why a pro rata clause is in the contract. If it takes Duke to get that done it costs them at most 35 to 40 million, which at this stage of the game is not a deal breaker if the goal is to keep the revenue model intact and FOX out of key states in the South with a ratings leader for that state. Florida State pays for itself as does UNC. Virginia could be a wash to slightly profitable. If the Big Ten doesn't pursue Virginia Tech or N.C. State ESPN, not the SEC, controls those markets. The SEC has the dominant position between the SEC and ACC because they took the flagships and best brands with the exception of FSU which gives us the top two brands in Florida and over 70% of the viewership accounting for market duplication.

The money will be there from ESPN. Whether this thing goes to 22 or 24 will likely depend upon what the Big Ten does. Miami and Georgia Tech will be to them what Virginia and Duke are to us. Without North Carolina and Florida State they may say Georgia Tech and Miami aren't worth it. If so we stop at 20. And the taking of North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke are not only the best offensive moves, but become the best defensive ones as well. Florida State to the SEC gives them no leverage in Florida for advertising and at best with Miami 19% to 20% of the market.

Those 4 to 20 are the smart play for ESPN and the SEC. They may prove to be all we need to stave off a Big Ten incursion. If so those 4 to the SEC actually preserves the ACC. If the Big Ten decides to go after Georgia Tech and Miami then we look at 24. Then both the network and the SEC have to determine if having them included is worth the dollars spent to do so. So that final move to 24 might include those two AAU schools, Clemson, and one of North Carolina State, Virginia Tech or Kansas and the reason I push Kansas is dominance in hoops when added to Duke and UNC and with Kentucky in hand and because they are the only remaining new market for the SEC and fit well with the new West.

I think we stop at 20. I believe the Big Ten presidents with Duke and UNC off the table will push for Stanford and Cal to match them academically. What they do about Notre Dame may be moot at this point. The SEC will do what is necessary to complete their vision of the this region and ESPN to protect their own interests will help to facilitate it. We will not lose money. We may not make a lot more, but we will make some. Florida State however will remain a necessary objective as well both for ESPN and the SEC.

(11-10-2025 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Bullet, I currently can't correct the quotes in your post to clean them up. Keyboard issue with the brackets for me.

Just quote this one if you want to do so.

The SEC isn't just about the money. They SEC from all lines, save currently media revenue, makes more than the Big Ten does for the same athletic endeavors. The SEC obviously faces a stronger need of revenue since Alston. But it's long-range strategic planning has always included simply dominating its own region of the country. They will go after North Carolina and Virginia to attain that objective. ESPN will welcome it as it lines up with ESPN securing its revenue model and its Winter programming anchors. I suspect that is why a pro rata clause is in the contract. If it takes Duke to get that done it costs them at most 35 to 40 million, which at this stage of the game is not a deal breaker if the goal is to keep the revenue model intact and FOX out of key states in the South with a ratings leader for that state. Florida State pays for itself as does UNC. Virginia could be a wash to slightly profitable. If the Big Ten doesn't pursue Virginia Tech or N.C. State ESPN, not the SEC, controls those markets. The SEC has the dominant position between the SEC and ACC because they took the flagships and best brands with the exception of FSU which gives us the top two brands in Florida and over 70% of the viewership accounting for market duplication.

The money will be there from ESPN. Whether this thing goes to 22 or 24 will likely depend upon what the Big Ten does. Miami and Georgia Tech will be to them what Virginia and Duke are to us. Without North Carolina and Florida State they may say Georgia Tech and Miami aren't worth it. If so we stop at 20. And the taking of North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke are not only the best offensive moves, but become the best defensive ones as well. Florida State to the SEC gives them no leverage in Florida for advertising and at best with Miami 19% to 20% of the market.

Those 4 to 20 are the smart play for ESPN and the SEC. They may prove to be all we need to stave off a Big Ten incursion. If so those 4 to the SEC actually preserves the ACC. If the Big Ten decides to go after Georgia Tech and Miami then we look at 24. Then both the network and the SEC have to determine if having them included is worth the dollars spent to do so. So that final move to 24 might include those two AAU schools, Clemson, and one of North Carolina State, Virginia Tech or Kansas and the reason I push Kansas is dominance in hoops when added to Duke and UNC and with Kentucky in hand and because they are the only remaining new market for the SEC and fit well with the new West.

I think we stop at 20. I believe the Big Ten presidents with Duke and UNC off the table will push for Stanford and Cal to match them academically. What they do about Notre Dame may be moot at this point. The SEC will do what is necessary to complete their vision of the this region and ESPN to protect their own interests will help to facilitate it. We will not lose money. We may not make a lot more, but we will make some. Florida State however will remain a necessary objective as well both for ESPN and the SEC.

I think Miami pays for themselves. At least for the Big Ten who has no prescence in Florida. I don't see them leaving Miami on the table. So if FSU and UNC aren't available, I think the Big Ten invites Miami and UVA. UVA doesn't pay for themselves alone, but they will combined with Miami (or FSU or Clemson or Notre Dame). And I have no doubt the presidents would love to invite all of UNC, Duke, UVA, Stanford and Cal if they could make it work without costing the other schools money. Its the financial viability I question.

(11-09-2025 10:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 10:39 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 12:23 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 11:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 09:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

In regards to Kansas, I think JR bought into the "we are finally investing" hype. Kansas is the best preseason team in the country. Every year it looks like they are going to finally match their excellent basketball. But every year it's the same story. Because the state of Kansas isn't producing talent like Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc.

Nope, I bought into the business synergy that schools in a region have with one another. Kansas has good synergy with Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri and is right next to Arkansas which can be developed. The tighter these groups get with one another the better their attendance grows, the more they travel to away games, and the more fervent the rivalries become the more people watch them on TV. It is a recipe that has placed the SEC way ahead of the other conferences in national viewership and without having to leave the expanded Southeastern/Southwestern region.

What I don't buy into is Coast to Coast fly to the next DMA approach to college athletics. Good luck with that. It's fun watching that new Soap, "As The Trojan Unfurls" now playing on the Big Ten Network.

(11-09-2025 11:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-09-2025 10:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 08:49 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 08:02 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-07-2025 10:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So out of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State and Duke the only one which arguably would be a drag on SEC football is Duke.

Seriously? The best football conference in history would not be dragged down by Virginia and North Carolina programs that have combined for two ranked seasons since Boston College joined the ACC over 20 years ago???

it only makes sense to add NC/VA. they expand the map without outrunning the footprint. FSu UM, Clemson won'f increase eyeballs enough to matter.

That said FSU, UM, Clemson likely make sense for B10 at reduced rate like Or/WA got.

Personally, I don't understand why the desire to establish monopolies. Lets say the Big 10 invite FSU, Miami, Clemson, and GT. Does that really impact the SEC? Are SEC fans going to stop watching because Miami changed their logo and plays Rutgers and UCLA?

It makes SENSE for the SEC to grab UNC, UVA, and stop. It doesn't matter if the Big 10.has more schools. That won't impact the payment per team or playoff chances. But right now the SEC product is top tier. Adding two new markets is an enhancement.

Adding 6 schools simply to prevent competition is risky. This would be a major drop in SOS, there would be teams that almost never play each other in most sports, and it's a major culture change.

Even adding UNC and UVA has risks. UNC has proven they cannot even be an elite ACC football program. They are not going to start playing Alabama and start going undefeated every year.

You work for Uncle Sam right? Leave business to business folk. The SEC format is working wonderfully. First maxim even for the military is "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

It ain't broke. It works great, and the SEC will keep working it. And right now, I think the number is 4, have shut down one of your troll threads, and am not as concerned over my position on the matter as you feign to be. The SEC will be fine. You should worry about your allegedly souring relationship with the Big Ten.

I mean you aren't wrong lol, what I think ultimately has no impact. But as a UA graduate I do have a vested interest even if I don't consider myself to be a fan.

And what troll thread are you referring to?

(11-10-2025 11:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 02:51 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 11:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  That's a red herring. With 20 schools and setting your own scheduling you pick up one of those games a year. They can be substituted on someone's schedule for Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State and somebody gets FSU. This is the lamest and most ridiculous line of reasoning ever. If anything, all of the leaders would be happy at the end of the day to have one conference game that was middling to weak. Hell, how many does the average Big Ten schedule have on them? You do realize that by going to 9 conference games with 20 schools that even if you counted them as weak games on the schedule that they would still be better draws than one of the replaced buy games, and if ESPN is paying for them they are not a drag on the media revenue (which they aren't anyway due to the market addition), and they all would add to the ticket price and concessions for anyone's home game over that of a buy game.

An argument can be made that any school the SEC invites that has a large and intense fanbase and has a solid and competent financial base of support would probably not be a middling to weak program most of the time. Look at Vanderbilt and Mississippi St now. The money, exposure and just being in the best conference in the nation in football, baseball and quite possibly basketball moving forward just elevates all schools to a level where none are weak other than in down years. It's a new age of NFL-like parity in the SEC. And it just means more.

That's absolutely correct! Brands, Markets, Academics, Competitiveness in all sports, it's all exactly what the Presidents and Sankey are looking for in new members. The same mentality was operative for the Texas and Oklahoma additions, for Texas A&M, and even Missouri, and was absolutely there for Arkansas in 1991-2. South Carolina was not immune to success either when they joined. You couldn't and wouldn't call any of them a bad addition or one the conference regrets. If they add North Carolina and Virginia, regardless of what some may think, they will have checked all of the boxes. Attendance, especially that which is impaired only by the capacity of the facilities, really only impacts the home revenue of those schools.

What's more the diaspora of UVa and UNC graduates into New England and New York and really all over, coupled with their hoops brand in areas which are basketball crazy only adds to their market reach, particularly in areas not normally reached by the SEC. Duke simply gloms on another national brand for that sport. The key however remains the 4th being F.S.U. to maintain control over the Florida market for ESPN, gain it for the SEC, and as a brand multiplier in football, though FSU adds to all sports as well. Whether it is that 4, or UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU we stock winners into our conference either way. The first one however does add more in the way of market reach.

We agree here, but to elaborate more narrowly on my point I'm going to use an analogy of something that would never happen and which I am not advocating. This is for illustrative purposes only, but if the SEC were to only add the ECU Pirates from the State of North Carolina, and again the SEC is not inviting them, and I am not saying they should even be considered, but if the SEC did, the Pirates immediately become the most valuable college athletic brand in that state based on short term speculation alone. I'm sure that breaks the brains of Tar Heels and Blue Devils, but that is now the power of the SEC's brand, value and influence.

The SEC not only has the power to chose kings, but to be kingmakers. The truth is if you have a large and intense fanbase, a strong athletic financial outlook, and possess a college football culture that is in it to win it, you would succeed enough in the SEC. The SEC would also be even stronger because of such inclusion, up to whatever cap of conference members that now exists in the new SEC professional collegiate landscape.

I don't think so. Louisville in recent years has usually had a better football program than Kentucky. And while A&M probably (and TCU definitely) were usually better football programs than Texas from 2014-2023, Texas still had far and away the most value. The SEC label makes you more valuable, but it wouldn't overcome the general advantages UNC and NCSU have over ECU.

Now it might be enough to push VPI over UVA or NCSU over UNC (in football only).

The past is not applicable. There never been a P2 vs non-P2 divide. In the past, conference supremacy rose or fell over the course of one to a few seasons. Power, prestige and wealth were spread out over several conferences. Now its only 2, and the power, wealth and prestige continues to consolidate and strengthen in thise 2 conferences. Either you are in the P2, or your not. That matters a lot now. It will matter more in the future.

(11-10-2025 10:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-10-2025 11:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 02:51 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2025 01:24 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  An argument can be made that any school the SEC invites that has a large and intense fanbase and has a solid and competent financial base of support would probably not be a middling to weak program most of the time. Look at Vanderbilt and Mississippi St now. The money, exposure and just being in the best conference in the nation in football, baseball and quite possibly basketball moving forward just elevates all schools to a level where none are weak other than in down years. It's a new age of NFL-like parity in the SEC. And it just means more.

That's absolutely correct! Brands, Markets, Academics, Competitiveness in all sports, it's all exactly what the Presidents and Sankey are looking for in new members. The same mentality was operative for the Texas and Oklahoma additions, for Texas A&M, and even Missouri, and was absolutely there for Arkansas in 1991-2. South Carolina was not immune to success either when they joined. You couldn't and wouldn't call any of them a bad addition or one the conference regrets. If they add North Carolina and Virginia, regardless of what some may think, they will have checked all of the boxes. Attendance, especially that which is impaired only by the capacity of the facilities, really only impacts the home revenue of those schools.

What's more the diaspora of UVa and UNC graduates into New England and New York and really all over, coupled with their hoops brand in areas which are basketball crazy only adds to their market reach, particularly in areas not normally reached by the SEC. Duke simply gloms on another national brand for that sport. The key however remains the 4th being F.S.U. to maintain control over the Florida market for ESPN, gain it for the SEC, and as a brand multiplier in football, though FSU adds to all sports as well. Whether it is that 4, or UNC, Duke, Clemson and FSU we stock winners into our conference either way. The first one however does add more in the way of market reach.

We agree here, but to elaborate more narrowly on my point I'm going to use an analogy of something that would never happen and which I am not advocating. This is for illustrative purposes only, but if the SEC were to only add the ECU Pirates from the State of North Carolina, and again the SEC is not inviting them, and I am not saying they should even be considered, but if the SEC did, the Pirates immediately become the most valuable college athletic brand in that state based on short term speculation alone. I'm sure that breaks the brains of Tar Heels and Blue Devils, but that is now the power of the SEC's brand, value and influence.

The SEC not only has the power to chose kings, but to be kingmakers. The truth is if you have a large and intense fanbase, a strong athletic financial outlook, and possess a college football culture that is in it to win it, you would succeed enough in the SEC. The SEC would also be even stronger because of such inclusion, up to whatever cap of conference members that now exists in the new SEC professional collegiate landscape.

I don't think so. Louisville in recent years has usually had a better football program than Kentucky. And while A&M probably (and TCU definitely) were usually better football programs than Texas from 2014-2023, Texas still had far and away the most value. The SEC label makes you more valuable, but it wouldn't overcome the general advantages UNC and NCSU have over ECU.

Now it might be enough to push VPI over UVA or NCSU over UNC (in football only).

The past is not applicable. There never been a P2 vs non-P2 divide. In the past, conference supremacy rose or fell over the course of one to a few seasons. Power, prestige and wealth were spread out over several conferences. Now its only 2, and the power, wealth and prestige continues to consolidate and strengthen in thise 2 conferences. Either you are in the P2, or your not. That matters a lot now. It will matter more in the future.

Louisville usually had a better football team in the Big East than UK had in the SEC. That was a huge gap.

Some of you people assume absolutely everything will be different with no history to support you and expect people not to challenge that. Things will be different, but we really don't know how. The M2 have plenty of money to support strong programs. See Miami and Texas Tech this year.