(10-04-2026 10:37 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  I think the number ends up at 21 and the independence clause goes away.

That is effectively a cap for both leagues at 20 with a ND spot.

SEC: UNC, UVA, Florida State, Duke
Big Ten: Miami, Stanford


I actually think Duke may grab the last spot instead of Clemson. I'm starting to turn on this one.

As a UConn fan, I hate to say this but Duke has the #1 college basketball brand (we may actually be #2 right now), and that may allow them to squeak in.

That’s plausible.

22 seems to produce the illusion of expansion for schools to continue to hold out hope. I strongly believe diminishing returns are already setting in and even 20 with equal shares is not a sustainable number considering the available schools.

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

(10-04-2026 10:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

I am not thinking of “getting to pick a tagalong.” I am thinking of keeping the exit door ajar when it is under legal threat.

The Magnificent Seven disclosure revealed the ACC has an active subgroup of schools—about half the conference!—who are serious about improving their situations. Schools in that group have been in contact with each other and swapped information. Presidents remember their colleagues who helped them.

Another consideration looming large right now: votes. In the House of Representatives.

California has the largest delegation of any US state. Reps from Florida and the Carolinas would surely like to get more votes for proposals of theirs like, oh, dropping the indie requirement. It would help to get some California reps voting with them, eh? It would indeed—and the odds of getting that support go up if a couple of influential California universities see opportunity for themselves in backing them.

This round of realignment is different. Congress is in the room now.

___

(10-04-2026 10:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

In the end I don't believe any of it will be as complicated as all who are talking about it on any forum make it out to be. With the work being done to try to resolve the CFP issues the SEC and Big Ten have been working out details on a proposed scheduling agreement between the two. I don't think they would be doing that unless they were pretty damned sure of how large they will be and who each other would be offering.

Enough conversations have happened informally, perhaps even some formally, between conferences and schools for them to already know who wants whom to travel with them, and for the conferences to have related back to those schools whether or not that would even be possible. If the two conferences are indeed working out scheduling agreements that tells me that tacitly they have a working understanding of who is to be included and some concept of how many will be involved between them.

Oddly, because of the compromise work on the CFP issues, schools which thought they had leverage in this process, likely don't. The priorities of the Big Ten and SEC are to get the exemption and work out the CFP. They've likely agreed on how large each wants to be, and could likely know who each other will be taking in. It is quite possible now that their agreement and relationship moving forward is priority #2. And if it is the much-ballyhooed leverage of the Tar Heels has already been bypassed. Inasmuch as ESPN wants the CFP matter handled and likely FOX as well there have been weightier issues before all of them than the realignment of the last half dozen to ten schools in. Priorities are about where the cash is made and how much is made, not in who gets to split it with them.

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  ....
I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.
....

When university presidents write to the US Congress, it is unlikely to be “all for show” to “the casual fan.”

As we have seen, these presidents were not in the room until very late when the Senate crafted its version of the bill. What should be clear to all now is that they intend to be in the room from the outset with the House.

In the House, votes count—and some states have more votes than others.

Reps from Florida (the third largest delegation at 28)—and the Carolinas (28 together) already support proposals to make conference migration easier.

Meanwhile, California (52) has the largest delegation of any state.

Reps from Florida and the Carolinas are seeking more support for their proposals. A good place to look for that support is California. Obviously, if a couple of influential California universities see opportunity for themselves in backing those proposals, the odds of getting it go up.

A university leader at Cal or Stanford knows immediately that a cap of 22 rather than 20 makes a difference.



https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-...s-by-state

At this point the infrastructure for multiple bidders to obtain the rights for complete conferences just does not exist. Also the length of existing contracts really does hinder additional bidders to gain a foothold in the short term.

So one would have to assume that the most interested parties to the PCSA and it's numbers cap would be ESPN and FOX, not the P4 or individual schools.

I would suggest that each network has developed models that would best serve their viewership (existing and proposed) in multiple numbers. Layer that on the proposed scheduling agreement between the SEC and B1G and each network would have a pretty good understanding of where the other one was should the "number" remain at 20 or advance to 22 or even 24.

No to suggest collusion between the networks, but I would imagine that both FOX and ESPN understand which expansion candidates are the more important to each. ESPN and FOX would have to be flexible in this regard because their window of opportunity will close as other platforms develop the infrastructure to compete with the pair.

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get watched by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

(10-04-2026 09:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

Could be that, N-Low. But I also wonder if UNC would like to continue to be aligned with Duke.

What I’m about to state will probably upset some but it’s the truth: UNC needs Duke more than Duke needs UNC. This goes for athletics and for academics.

In fairness, based on what I see at least once weekly the rivalry between Duke and UNC matters much more to UNC than vice versa.

Edited to add: much of this can be explained by the fact that around 63% of Duke’s enrollment is made up of graduate students, many of whom brought with them their athletic allegiance to the school they got their undergrad degrees from (if they even care about sports at all).

It was almost two years now when a lot of talk was going around about Carolina moving out of the ACC, that Duke's unofficial mouthpiece (Coach K) suggested that Duke would be content to move to the Big East should Carolina move out of the ACC.

Very few people took much notice of that comment, but it showed a willingness on Duke's part to separate from Carolina if the Tar Heels continued to pursue their increased "national" athletic asperations.

Duke could drop fb tomorrow and join the BE and they wouldn’t miss a beat. UNC is more a traditional school that has lots of undergrads and a statewide fan base to satisfy. Sure, more UCLA than USC, but football still matters. Krzyzewski was just advoting for his school, anyway. He knows that UNC is probably leaving, and he also knows that Duke is probably not.

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

We’ve showed you why certain schools generate more money for a conference than Clemson. Multiple professionals have also shown you why.

It’s obvious you’re not going to pay attention, so why is anyone obligated to continue this conversation with you?

(10-04-2026 11:49 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  ....
I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.
....

When university presidents write to the US Congress, it is unlikely to be “all for show” to “the casual fan.”

As we have seen, these presidents were not in the room until very late when the Senate crafted its version of the bill. What should be clear to all now is that they intend to be in the room from the outset with the House.

In the House, votes count—and some states have more votes than others.

Reps from Florida (the third largest delegation at 28)—and the Carolinas (28 together) already support proposals to make conference migration easier.

Meanwhile, California (52) has the largest delegation of any state.

Reps from Florida and the Carolinas are seeking more support for their proposals. A good place to look for that support is California. Obviously, if a couple of influential California universities see opportunity for themselves in backing those proposals, the odds of getting it go up.

A university leader at Cal or Stanford knows immediately that a cap of 22 rather than 20 makes a difference.



https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-...s-by-state

Perhaps they should write to the B1G and SEC and ask them to expand

As another poster said, I believe reps from other states should push for reducing or even eliminating the 75% pooling rule. Why not open the market up?

(10-04-2026 10:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

USC did not get to bring UCLA. Rather, UCLA got the 2nd invite because the LA market is so huge that the B1G's television partners wanted UCLA's sliver of it more than any other school in the PAC12.

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

I agree about 95%, only take issue with the Far and Away comparison of attendance with Notre Dame. I believe Clemson average is about 3000 or 4,000 more per game which to me isn't far and away but still.

If I could add four teams to the SEC they would be North Carolina, Clemson, FSU and Virginia.

(10-04-2026 12:45 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 10:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

USC did not get to bring UCLA. Rather, UCLA got the 2nd invite because the LA market is so huge that the B1G's television partners wanted UCLA's sliver of it more than any other school in the PAC12.

He’s obsessed with attendance as a factor in realignment yet both the LA schools have had problems there that had absolutely zero effect on their inclusion.

(10-04-2026 12:38 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

We’ve showed you why certain schools generate more money for a conference than Clemson. Multiple professionals have also shown you why.

It’s obvious you’re not going to pay attention, so why is anyone obligated to continue this conversation with you?

Links? And don't say "b/c some SEC Presidents told McMurphy they want UVA". That's the EXACT same thing that happened with the B1G with Cal and Stanford, yet they magically pivoted to Oregon and Washington b/c those 2 actually add value. Let's see some actual financial analysis that explains how UVA's paltry tv numbers would magically quintuple overnight if they joined the SEC and lost to Alabama instead of Miami. Because when it comes down to it, these school Presidents are also SEC Presidents, and they're not going to hurt their school's bottom line so they can take tea 4x a year with UVA instead of Clemson (or FSU or Miami). You want to talk about FSU or Miami instead of Clemson? I'm all ears, that's a good conversation to have. But don't try to gaslight me into thinking that Arkansas, Miss St, Texas or Georgia are ultimately going to vote in a school that costs us all a bunch of money, one that barely breaks us even in the absolute rosiest possible projections.

People here seem to think that the SEC HAS TO do something. With a 19 or even 20 cap, the SEC need to nothing at all. The B1G will still wait on ND, leaving the ACC completely alone, or perhaps alone other than Miami, unless and until the SEC decides as 2034 rolls around that, ok, fine, I guess we can add 2 more schools. If people want to make a claim that UVA is more suitable than VT, GT, Louisville, Colorado, or any other M2 schools, I mean, I'd dispute that, too, but at least you can have a conversation about it, and UVA does have some things in its favor in that comparison. But compare them with UNC, Miami, Clemson or FSU, and UVA's best hope is that the SEC holds off on expansion for 5-10 years and the landscape looks remarkably different in the mid-2030s than it does in the mid-2020s. As in, they turn the tables on VT, they start collecting big scalps and huge ratings, and their State and fanbase start actually caring what happens to UVA football, b/c right now it's hard to see that, or that it's ever been the case in the entire history of the school.

I'd say that the closest comparison in P4 expansion to UVA is Maryland. Both quality ACC founding members, Flagships, AAU, in pretty good regions with lots of people. How is Maryland doing in the B1G in a day and age in which cable subscriptions are worth less and less? I don't think that Maryland is any better than they'd have been if they remained in the ACC. Sure, their long term outlook is better, but is the B1G's long term outlook any better b/c they have Maryland instead of any of a dozen others they could have added 10 years ago? Maryland did their part a decade ago, but there's no way either of the P2 would invite Maryland today if they were still in the ACC.

(10-04-2026 12:49 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:45 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 10:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

USC did not get to bring UCLA. Rather, UCLA got the 2nd invite because the LA market is so huge that the B1G's television partners wanted UCLA's sliver of it more than any other school in the PAC12.

He’s obsessed with attendance as a factor in realignment yet both the LA schools have had problems there that had absolutely zero effect on their inclusion.

Attendance is a great way to judge fan interest, assuming you account for capacity crowds, with a few outliers. But choosing your conference (or being chosen) is about far more than just that.

(10-04-2026 12:45 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 10:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

I don’t necessarily think that this is the case, or perhaps not in the way that you’re thinking of it. Looking at recent history, Arkansas and USCe didn’t get to bring a friend, neither did PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado (either time) or A&M. Texas tried and failed to bring Texas Tech practically everywhere, though I would argue that was more bc they politically felt they “had to” rather than bc of any desire to stay together. Ditto for OU with Ok St, though that was explicitly stated by Borden, who as a former Oklahoma Governor refused to leave Ok St behind. Eventually, OU and Texas joined the SEC, but either could have joined without the other for obvious reasons.

In fact, I would say that the only example in modern history of a P2 candidate getting to pick a tagalong was USC bringing UCLA with them. And in the case of UCLA, they brought a whole lot more value to the B1G than any potential ACC +1, like 11 mbb Titles, helping to completely lock down Southern California, and the Rose Bowl.

How can UVA or NC State hope to compete with that? And I think most here would agree that UCLA is the P2 cutoff line today, the B1G equivalent of Missouri (who just destroyed #9 Florida by 28 yesterday). Ie, if you don’t bring at least that much Flagship, AAU, above and beyond elite Academics and geography, insane vslue for BTN, SoCal, Rose Bowl, all time great mbb, and pretty decent football that regularly gets OTA slots even in losing seasons, you’re not getting in even as a +1. The geography thing for UCLA was particularly important, as UCLA still in the PAC 12 would have significantly hindered the B1G’s takeover of that huge region. Just on that one topic, they’re equivalent to the best of the ACC.

USC did not get to bring UCLA. Rather, UCLA got the 2nd invite because the LA market is so huge that the B1G's television partners wanted UCLA's sliver of it more than any other school in the PAC12.

Most things have been decided. All that matters now is the sequence of events. Event #1 is the obtaining of an anti-trust exemption. All other events will then assume the correct sequence. 90% or more of this discussion is moot, or unrelated to the current reality. Debates over schools that will or will not get in are moot. The assumptions about which entities are in control of it, and which are not are largely specious as control may be more in a state of flux than static.

I'll just say that in 5 to 10 years' time people may look back upon this series of events and tag it as one of the most important pivots in college sports.

(10-03-2026 10:54 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 06:39 PM)mj4life Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

Can't speak for the others but I'm sure Carolina wants as many options as possible. State politics could also be in play. Carolina has a lot of moving parts, new arena,North campus expansion,possible engineering school, undergrad expansion, NC Children's hospital campus(with Duke) etc

Good points, all. I doubt that UNC will get the engineering program anytime soon but the NC Children’s Hospital is a huge deal.

I think unc and State have a joint bio-med engineering program.

(10-04-2026 12:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:38 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

We’ve showed you why certain schools generate more money for a conference than Clemson. Multiple professionals have also shown you why.

It’s obvious you’re not going to pay attention, so why is anyone obligated to continue this conversation with you?

Links? And don't say "b/c some SEC Presidents told McMurphy they want UVA". That's the EXACT same thing that happened with the B1G with Cal and Stanford, yet they magically pivoted to Oregon and Washington b/c those 2 actually add value. Let's see some actual financial analysis that explains how UVA's paltry tv numbers would magically quintuple overnight if they joined the SEC and lost to Alabama instead of Miami. Because when it comes down to it, these school Presidents are also SEC Presidents, and they're not going to hurt their school's bottom line so they can take tea 4x a year with UVA instead of Clemson (or FSU or Miami). You want to talk about FSU or Miami instead of Clemson? I'm all ears, that's a good conversation to have. But don't try to gaslight me into thinking that Arkansas, Miss St, Texas or Georgia are ultimately going to vote in a school that costs us all a bunch of money, one that barely breaks us even in the absolute rosiest possible projections.

People here seem to think that the SEC HAS TO do something. With a 19 or even 20 cap, the SEC need to nothing at all. The B1G will still wait on ND, leaving the ACC completely alone, or perhaps alone other than Miami, unless and until the SEC decides as 2034 rolls around that, ok, fine, I guess we can add 2 more schools. If people want to make a claim that UVA is more suitable than VT, GT, Louisville, Colorado, or any other M2 schools, I mean, I'd dispute that, too, but at least you can have a conversation about it, and UVA does have some things in its favor in that comparison. But compare them with UNC, Miami, Clemson or FSU, and UVA's best hope is that the SEC holds off on expansion for 5-10 years and the landscape looks remarkably different in the mid-2030s than it does in the mid-2020s. As in, they turn the tables on VT, they start collecting big scalps and huge ratings, and their State and fanbase start actually caring what happens to UVA football, b/c right now it's hard to see that, or that it's ever been the case in the entire history of the school.

I'd say that the closest comparison in P4 expansion to UVA is Maryland. Both quality ACC founding members, Flagships, AAU, in pretty good regions with lots of people. How is Maryland doing in the B1G in a day and age in which cable subscriptions are worth less and less? I don't think that Maryland is any better than they'd have been if they remained in the ACC. Sure, their long term outlook is better, but is the B1G's long term outlook any better b/c they have Maryland instead of any of a dozen others they could have added 10 years ago? Maryland did their part a decade ago, but there's no way either of the P2 would invite Maryland today if they were still in the ACC.

Bryan, I’ve shared multiple links with you before. You’re being obtuse if you think UVa as a pro-rata vs Clemson as a pro-rata produces an equal result or somehow favors Clemson. It doesn’t. UVa brings the Commonwealth and lucrative NOVA. Clemson brings, well, nothing the SEC doesn’t already have.

McMurphy, Low, Finebaum, heck even resident SEC expert JR has told you.

(10-04-2026 12:24 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 07:02 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  I think schools like Clemson should be legitimately concerned they might not make it at 20 and 22 provides them cushion.

If football isn't national title contender worthy (and there's no signs of that coming back any time soon), what does Clemson give you moving forward? They're going to play South Carolina at the end of the year regardless.

UNC would be good with 20, but they also want to be able to tell their friends they advocated for a higher cap so they could join with them. "Demanding" they want 22 allows them to say, "Look at the paper trail. We tried. It wasn't our call that you were left behind."

Clemson has by far the greatest attendance outside of the P2, even more than ND, and even in bad years they pull about as many eyeballs as FSU and Miami. Do the P2 want schools that have to say “but we’d get on tv more and pull more eyeballs if we played SEC teams every week”, or perhaps rather schools that get on tv and get water by lots of people, win or lose? Clemson pulls 3x as many eyeballs every year as UNC if they’re both 7-5 or 9-3, and perhaps 1.5-2x as many if they’re both 11-1 or 4-8.

People act like Clemson is at death’s door. They’re still freaking CLEMSON. If somebody wants to say “school X would be a better P2 candidate than Clemson”, show us why.

This is correct. People drastically under appreciate the staying power of large sports brands. Reading people on here discount brands like Tennessee, Auburn, Nebraska, and even Florida because they have had a run of bad years is naive to the point of sympathetic embarrassment.

Other than having sufficient academics, which is now a little lower bar than it used to be a few years ago because the money at stake has grown to epic proportions, the only real challenge to brand value supremacy in conference realignment is the still relevant cable market dynamic of a new state, or possibly still a large metropolitan area, that generates new cable fees. Of course that dynamic is slowly shrinking, but it may level off at about 50 million households nationwide.

That means UVA and/or VT, North Carolina, and maybe another NC school or two, can still offer about an additional $40 to $60 million dollars a year to a new conference. That is a big advantage these schools have over larger football brands. However, the importance of ad rates has also increased as college football continues to grow. My estimation is a new national brand that can bring in a 6.5 million viewers per football game matches the new media footprints of North Carolina and Virginia.

I think FSU, Miami and Clemson most likely bring that level of interest, or more, as college football continues its growth, and over time brand power probably continues it value enhancement while regional cable carriage fees continues its decline against national streaming fees primary driven by national brands. It is important to note that while carriage fees are shrinking they still offer guaranteed income for many years, so those dollars are worth a little more now in predicting future income.

(10-04-2026 09:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:09 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 12:18 AM)The Beaver Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 10:44 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-03-2026 02:32 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  It’s possible that the cap won’t be raised but that the 3-year indy requirement will be removed. That’s what I think the most likely outcome is.

I don’t know why UNC and the others signed off on this recommendation. My suspicions are that UNC is worried that it can’t untangle itself from NCSU due to politics and that they know they are stuck unless they can drag them along. This, or it’s all for show; appearing to make an effort pleases the casual fan and some of the donors who are supportive of such a move.

FSU, Clemson and Miami? I’m clueless. All three are desirable targets and none have others they might be forced to drag along.

Another possibility is this: the ACC is looking to expand and would like to go to 22 members.

All these schools have old friends they want to bring along if they can.

Of the four, North Carolina has the most incentive to make some more room.

I’d expect Florida State and Miami do want to strengthen their mutual positions. They each have an interest in ensuring that P2 leagues, should they be interested in both, are not in a position where they feel forced to choose only one.

__

Do they, though? What old friends would the Florida schools want to bring, other than each other? Who does Clemson want to bring? Is the answer to both Notre Dame? I'd argue North Carolina has a much more compelling case to want to bring not just Duke but also NCST and Virginia. Though they only really get to push a single one at 22 and likely don't get to make any demands at all at 20.

While prudent advocacy is acceptable, I doubt any SEC candidate gets to make any demands.

The sentiment in Chapel Hill is much more divided than what you will read here on this forum or see on YouTube videos. I am led to believe that Carolina could go either way (SEC or B1G) and a lot of the decision would be influenced by what sort of favorable arrangements that could be made.

I would suggest to you that Carolina will have multiple demands met, by the competing parties before a move is made in either direction.

What will these multiple demands met conclude?