(10-04-2026 09:17 PM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  The additions of USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, etc are the best things to EVER happen to the athletics programs of Northwestern, South Carolina, Mississippi State, etc.
....

Then they’re gonna love Clemson.

(10-04-2026 01:15 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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.

UVA brings nothing. They're Cal on the east coast. You can trumpet this crap about how great UVA allegedly is until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. What we know from the past 50 or so years of watching football, at least what I know since I've been watching football instead of basketball, is that nobody gives a darn what UVA does on the gridiron. If football wasn't 85% of the money in Realignment, like, say, 20 years ago, then UVA to the SEC would make a whole lot of sense. I'd even bet a lot of money that the old time SEC powers that be would have loved a shot at UVA. However, it's a different world today, and mere proximity to another potential SEC school doesn't quite get it done.

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps none of the SEC Presidents are very capable with a calculator, or at least 75% of them aren't, and they collectively decide to subsidize UVA from here to Kingdom Come b/c, you know, AAU and Geography. Lord knows my Aggies could use some more easy games, we looked like world beaters against Arkansas yesterday.

If all we want is an Academically superior partner for UNC then Duke is better. If all we want is quality football in Virginia with a big fb fanbase then VT is better. If we must have an AAU school to pair with UNC then Miami is lightyears better. If we still care about football enthusiasm then Clemson and FSU are both a million times better. Any way you slice it, UVA is the odd little duckling. Their one, tiny, faint hope, I suppose is that the B1G adds Miami + GT/Stanford/maybe even ND, then the SEC decides to just grab 4 all at once with UNC, FSU and Clemson the obvious first three and then, belatedly, reluctantly, we foolishly give that 20th spot to UVA instead of someone who can carry their own weight for the next 100 years.

You can't bring the ACC of your choice with you. If you're gonna leave, then leave, and let go of the barnacles.

(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above 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.

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.

Impressive to see someone use reason around here. That's the first cogent argument I've seen that gives UVA even a glimmer of hope. +3 to you good sir!

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:18 PM)Lurker Above 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.

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.

I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

Clemson has a similar-sized fan base to OU, they pull similar TV numbers against other big brands, they're in a similarly pretty good but not great location, and they've been better than, or at the very least just as good as OU in the 21st century. Even their game day attendance is comparable. In fact, I think that OU is the best comparison to Clemson of any SEC school, with Auburn a close 2nd. Would we love to have another OU or Auburn to juice our TV numbers even more, or would we rather bring in a barnacle b/c they can give us a bunch of cable subscriptions that slowly decline over the next couple decades, also btw ensuring that we see less of Alabama-Georgia and more of Alabama-UVA? I'm not certain that we'd pick Clemson over "do nothing", but I'm pretty confident that we'd pick them over a program that's never proven capable of competing at the highest levels in the ACC.

(10-04-2026 04:46 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:27 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:41 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:37 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  I don’t discount big brands/programs. I do discount that Clemson has the pedigree to qualify compared to OU, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. Clemson wasn’t “freaking CLEMSON” 18 years ago when Dabo took over mid season for a fired Tommy Bowden and the Bowden era wasn’t some outlier of mediocrity like Gibbs at OU or Gerry Faust at ND. Clemson pre-Dabo was a historically good (not great) program that had one national title without ever really being close to another and had been irrelevant in the ACC after FSU arrived. And Dabo’s best years get further in the rear view mirror every season.

You really think so? Name 24 bigger college football programs as of 18 years ago.

18 years ago:

West Virginia

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, FSU, Miami

Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas, LSU

Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa

Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado

Washington, Oregon, Cal, Southern Cal, UCLA, Arizona State

Utah, TCU, heck even Boise State

All were more nationally relevant than Clemson in 2008.

People seem to forget Clemson was a national afterthought for about 20 years until Dabo. There was the Woody Dantzler for Heisman blip and that’s about it.

You are confusing on field performance with program strength. Clemson easily was in the top 24 in their lowest years.

I’m talking about national relevancy. You seem to be making up some metric that only exists in your head.

You are being deliberately obtuse. Clemson in their darkest hour was no worse than Nebraska is today on the field, in fact they were probably a bit better. However, they still always mattered. Just like Miami could spend their first 20 years hibernating in the ACC then blow up on the national scene last year like they never left, Nebraska will do that one, and Clemson did that 18 years ago. UVA can't do that b/c nobody cares about them, or not enough care about them I should say. If UVA reels off the exact same record with the exact same success, lots of Conference titles, 2 national titles, etc etc, as Clemson has managed over the past 18 years, they STILL won't pull the numbers that Clemson pulls, and they still won't have the fan support than Clemson has today b/c Clemson just has a whole lot longer at being a Big Brand. Or, to put it in terms you can understand, if UVA reels off 60 NCAAT wins over the next 25 years, wins a couple more titles, just starts kicking butt and taking names every freakin' year in basketball, they'll still be a smaller Brand than your Tar Heels, and they still won't have the basketball fan enthusiasm that UNC has right now. Why is that? Because they're not a Brand. That doesn't mean that they can never become a Brand, but that doesn't happen overnight, as you well know. And the SEC is not the place you go hoping to eventually turn into a Brand.

Either you're already a Brand so you're on our radar, or you're not and we'll let you sit in the ACC unless and until that changes. UNC is the Brand in this discussion, and UVA is the one that gets to hang out in the ACC. You can stay with them if you like, but you can't bring them with you.

To Bryan's point, I saw more enthusiasm in Northern Virginia for the VT - Pitt game than I've seen for any football game UVA has ever played.

(10-04-2026 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:15 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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.

UVA brings nothing. They're Cal on the east coast. You can trumpet this crap about how great UVA allegedly is until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. What we know from the past 50 or so years of watching football, at least what I know since I've been watching football instead of basketball, is that nobody gives a darn what UVA does on the gridiron. If football wasn't 85% of the money in Realignment, like, say, 20 years ago, then UVA to the SEC would make a whole lot of sense. I'd even bet a lot of money that the old time SEC powers that be would have loved a shot at UVA. However, it's a different world today, and mere proximity to another potential SEC school doesn't quite get it done.

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps none of the SEC Presidents are very capable with a calculator, or at least 75% of them aren't, and they collectively decide to subsidize UVA from here to Kingdom Come b/c, you know, AAU and Geography. Lord knows my Aggies could use some more easy games, we looked like world beaters against Arkansas yesterday.

If all we want is an Academically superior partner for UNC then Duke is better. If all we want is quality football in Virginia with a big fb fanbase then VT is better. If we must have an AAU school to pair with UNC then Miami is lightyears better. If we still care about football enthusiasm then Clemson and FSU are both a million times better. Any way you slice it, UVA is the odd little duckling. Their one, tiny, faint hope, I suppose is that the B1G adds Miami + GT/Stanford/maybe even ND, then the SEC decides to just grab 4 all at once with UNC, FSU and Clemson the obvious first three and then, belatedly, reluctantly, we foolishly give that 20th spot to UVA instead of someone who can carry their own weight for the next 100 years.

You can't bring the ACC of your choice with you. If you're gonna leave, then leave, and let go of the barnacles.

It's interesting how few private schools there are in the P2 (only 3). Northwestern in the B1G and Vanderbilt in the SEC have been long time members of their conferences while USC is the only private to be added during modern realignment. The M2 have more, the Big 12 has three while the ACC has 8, if Notre Dame is included plus Pitt which has an unusual status.

For the most part the P2 is built with public flagship Universities. UVa and Carolina are top 5 Public schools, the flagship Universities of their respective states. If you are checking boxes on membership criteria (Public Flagship, with a bonus of being a top 5 Public) UVa gets the check mark......Duke does not.

(10-04-2026 02:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  18 years ago:

18 years ago Alabama had Mike Shula as coach, care to elaborate on how that went? and the years before Shula showed up? the Mike DuBose era? Chat us up about Dennis Francione, will ya?

Also, 18 years ago, Alabama was getting ready to lose to *checks notes* Louisiana-Monroe.

I'm far from a defender of Clemson, but the recency bias and elitism in your posts are rich coming from a fan of an athletic department that should have been ENTIRELY shut down and has ZERO relevancy in football EVER (including the Choo-Choo Justice blip)

(10-04-2026 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:15 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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.

UVA brings nothing. They're Cal on the east coast. You can trumpet this crap about how great UVA allegedly is until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. What we know from the past 50 or so years of watching football, at least what I know since I've been watching football instead of basketball, is that nobody gives a darn what UVA does on the gridiron. If football wasn't 85% of the money in Realignment, like, say, 20 years ago, then UVA to the SEC would make a whole lot of sense. I'd even bet a lot of money that the old time SEC powers that be would have loved a shot at UVA. However, it's a different world today, and mere proximity to another potential SEC school doesn't quite get it done.

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps none of the SEC Presidents are very capable with a calculator, or at least 75% of them aren't, and they collectively decide to subsidize UVA from here to Kingdom Come b/c, you know, AAU and Geography. Lord knows my Aggies could use some more easy games, we looked like world beaters against Arkansas yesterday.

If all we want is an Academically superior partner for UNC then Duke is better. If all we want is quality football in Virginia with a big fb fanbase then VT is better. If we must have an AAU school to pair with UNC then Miami is lightyears better. If we still care about football enthusiasm then Clemson and FSU are both a million times better. Any way you slice it, UVA is the odd little duckling. Their one, tiny, faint hope, I suppose is that the B1G adds Miami + GT/Stanford/maybe even ND, then the SEC decides to just grab 4 all at once with UNC, FSU and Clemson the obvious first three and then, belatedly, reluctantly, we foolishly give that 20th spot to UVA instead of someone who can carry their own weight for the next 100 years.

You can't bring the ACC of your choice with you. If you're gonna leave, then leave, and let go of the barnacles.

You are. I’ve proven it with my own argument supported by industry experts. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make you correct.

(10-05-2026 05:05 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 02:20 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  18 years ago:

18 years ago Alabama had Mike Shula as coach, care to elaborate on how that went? and the years before Shula showed up? the Mike DuBose era? Chat us up about Dennis Francione, will ya?

Also, 18 years ago, Alabama was getting ready to lose to *checks notes* Louisiana-Monroe.

I'm far from a defender of Clemson, but the recency bias and elitism in your posts are rich coming from a fan of an athletic department that should have been ENTIRELY shut down and has ZERO relevancy in football EVER (including the Choo-Choo Justice blip)

You’re likening the 20th century history of Alabama to Clemson? I don’t think you’re fit to have this conversation. Bama went to four NYD bowls in from 90-2000 when they were “down.”

Recency bias would favor Clemson btw.

Clemson is a good brand, but not elite. AL is a true-blue blood. Clemson has 2 spells in 20 years where they were really good.

To be honest I don't think the BIG or SEC really want them and that also is true of FSU. SEC would like NC and Va then call it a day. BIG wants NC and ND, they would take VA and/or UM if needed to get 1 and 2.












d

(10-05-2026 07:37 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Clemson is a good brand, but not elite. AL is a true-blue blood. Clemson has 2 spells in 20 years where they were really good.

To be honest I don't think the BIG or SEC really want them and that also is true of FSU. SEC would like NC and Va then call it a day. BIG wants NC and ND, they would take VA and/or UM if needed to get 1 and 2.



Are they top 10, no.
Are they top 20, absolutely. And they are a bigger brand than Washington or Oregon who just got into the Big Ten.








d

(10-05-2026 08:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 07:37 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Clemson is a good brand, but not elite. AL is a true-blue blood. Clemson has 2 spells in 20 years where they were really good.

To be honest I don't think the BIG or SEC really want them and that also is true of FSU. SEC would like NC and Va then call it a day. BIG wants NC and ND, they would take VA and/or UM if needed to get 1 and 2.

Are they top 10, no.
Are they top 20, absolutely. And they are a bigger brand than Washington or Oregon who just got into the Big Ten.

I'm not sure about ahead of Oregon. I would put all three of those between 15-25.

(10-05-2026 07:37 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Clemson is a good brand, but not elite. AL is a true-blue blood. Clemson has 2 spells in 20 years where they were really good.

To be honest I don't think the BIG or SEC really want them and that also is true of FSU. SEC would like NC and Va then call it a day. BIG wants NC and ND, they would take VA and/or UM if needed to get 1 and 2.

I don't think the political leaders in Fla and SC had the clout alone to amend the cap to 20 or 22. Too many schools would be affected by such a hard cap like 19. 22 is a lot more reasonable. 22 is getting pushed by reps within the states that are targets, VA and NC. If they can get it pushed to 22, 24 or 28 will become a possibility down the road. I don't know what the end goal is, but ultimately, one of the M2 conferences is going to get cut or relegated once we go past 22. A breakaway of 68-76 is inevitable.

(10-05-2026 08:35 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 08:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 07:37 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Clemson is a good brand, but not elite. AL is a true-blue blood. Clemson has 2 spells in 20 years where they were really good.

To be honest I don't think the BIG or SEC really want them and that also is true of FSU. SEC would like NC and Va then call it a day. BIG wants NC and ND, they would take VA and/or UM if needed to get 1 and 2.

Are they top 10, no.
Are they top 20, absolutely. And they are a bigger brand than Washington or Oregon who just got into the Big Ten.

I'm not sure about ahead of Oregon. I would put all three of those between 15-25.

I would put Clemson 13-18 similar to LSU, Tennessee and Auburn. Washington and Oregon would be just behind that group and just ahead of schools like Wisconsin and Iowa.

(10-05-2026 04:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:15 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

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

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

UVA brings nothing. They're Cal on the east coast. You can trumpet this crap about how great UVA allegedly is until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. What we know from the past 50 or so years of watching football, at least what I know since I've been watching football instead of basketball, is that nobody gives a darn what UVA does on the gridiron. If football wasn't 85% of the money in Realignment, like, say, 20 years ago, then UVA to the SEC would make a whole lot of sense. I'd even bet a lot of money that the old time SEC powers that be would have loved a shot at UVA. However, it's a different world today, and mere proximity to another potential SEC school doesn't quite get it done.

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps none of the SEC Presidents are very capable with a calculator, or at least 75% of them aren't, and they collectively decide to subsidize UVA from here to Kingdom Come b/c, you know, AAU and Geography. Lord knows my Aggies could use some more easy games, we looked like world beaters against Arkansas yesterday.

If all we want is an Academically superior partner for UNC then Duke is better. If all we want is quality football in Virginia with a big fb fanbase then VT is better. If we must have an AAU school to pair with UNC then Miami is lightyears better. If we still care about football enthusiasm then Clemson and FSU are both a million times better. Any way you slice it, UVA is the odd little duckling. Their one, tiny, faint hope, I suppose is that the B1G adds Miami + GT/Stanford/maybe even ND, then the SEC decides to just grab 4 all at once with UNC, FSU and Clemson the obvious first three and then, belatedly, reluctantly, we foolishly give that 20th spot to UVA instead of someone who can carry their own weight for the next 100 years.

You can't bring the ACC of your choice with you. If you're gonna leave, then leave, and let go of the barnacles.

It's interesting how few private schools there are in the P2 (only 3). Northwestern in the B1G and Vanderbilt in the SEC have been long time members of their conferences while USC is the only private to be added during modern realignment. The M2 have more, the Big 12 has three while the ACC has 8, if Notre Dame is included plus Pitt which has an unusual status.

For the most part the P2 is built with public flagship Universities. UVa and Carolina are top 5 Public schools, the flagship Universities of their respective states. If you are checking boxes on membership criteria (Public Flagship, with a bonus of being a top 5 Public) UVa gets the check mark......Duke does not.

That's true ofc, but all of our Public Flagship schools share one thing in common: they are absolutely bonkers about football. Their fans are, their admins, their boosters, the random dudes 80 miles away wear their colors b/c it's STATE U, etc etc etc. As noted above, VT has that bonkers football enthusiasm in Virginia, not UVA. Good luck stealing those fans from VT now. At least with Duke, they're truly elite in mbb, certainly top 3 and probably #1 these days as a Brand, so they bring something to the SEC. And Duke actually has a rivalry with UNC, one of the biggest in any sport I'm not saying that we will or we should invite Duke by the way, I'm just giving a reason why we should if our only choice was "UVA or Duke and you have to pick one of them".

There's no doubt Duke is the number one basketball brand in the country.

Doesn't mean they have the most accomplished history (they don't), but they've separated from Kentucky, UNC, and Kansas as a brand.

(10-05-2026 04:00 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  To Bryan's point, I saw more enthusiasm in Northern Virginia for the VT - Pitt game than I've seen for any football game UVA has ever played.

UVA getting in the SEC over VA Tech would be disheartening

(10-05-2026 09:37 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 04:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:15 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

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

UVA brings nothing. They're Cal on the east coast. You can trumpet this crap about how great UVA allegedly is until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. What we know from the past 50 or so years of watching football, at least what I know since I've been watching football instead of basketball, is that nobody gives a darn what UVA does on the gridiron. If football wasn't 85% of the money in Realignment, like, say, 20 years ago, then UVA to the SEC would make a whole lot of sense. I'd even bet a lot of money that the old time SEC powers that be would have loved a shot at UVA. However, it's a different world today, and mere proximity to another potential SEC school doesn't quite get it done.

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps none of the SEC Presidents are very capable with a calculator, or at least 75% of them aren't, and they collectively decide to subsidize UVA from here to Kingdom Come b/c, you know, AAU and Geography. Lord knows my Aggies could use some more easy games, we looked like world beaters against Arkansas yesterday.

If all we want is an Academically superior partner for UNC then Duke is better. If all we want is quality football in Virginia with a big fb fanbase then VT is better. If we must have an AAU school to pair with UNC then Miami is lightyears better. If we still care about football enthusiasm then Clemson and FSU are both a million times better. Any way you slice it, UVA is the odd little duckling. Their one, tiny, faint hope, I suppose is that the B1G adds Miami + GT/Stanford/maybe even ND, then the SEC decides to just grab 4 all at once with UNC, FSU and Clemson the obvious first three and then, belatedly, reluctantly, we foolishly give that 20th spot to UVA instead of someone who can carry their own weight for the next 100 years.

You can't bring the ACC of your choice with you. If you're gonna leave, then leave, and let go of the barnacles.

It's interesting how few private schools there are in the P2 (only 3). Northwestern in the B1G and Vanderbilt in the SEC have been long time members of their conferences while USC is the only private to be added during modern realignment. The M2 have more, the Big 12 has three while the ACC has 8, if Notre Dame is included plus Pitt which has an unusual status.

For the most part the P2 is built with public flagship Universities. UVa and Carolina are top 5 Public schools, the flagship Universities of their respective states. If you are checking boxes on membership criteria (Public Flagship, with a bonus of being a top 5 Public) UVa gets the check mark......Duke does not.

That's true ofc, but all of our Public Flagship schools share one thing in common: they are absolutely bonkers about football. Their fans are, their admins, their boosters, the random dudes 80 miles away wear their colors b/c it's STATE U, etc etc etc. As noted above, VT has that bonkers football enthusiasm in Virginia, not UVA. Good luck stealing those fans from VT now. At least with Duke, they're truly elite in mbb, certainly top 3 and probably #1 these days as a Brand, so they bring something to the SEC. And Duke actually has a rivalry with UNC, one of the biggest in any sport I'm not saying that we will or we should invite Duke by the way, I'm just giving a reason why we should if our only choice was "UVA or Duke and you have to pick one of them".

Carolina is not "bonkers" for football either.

(10-04-2026 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-04-2026 01:15 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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.

UVA brings nothing. They're Cal on the east coast. You can trumpet this crap about how great UVA allegedly is until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change that. What we know from the past 50 or so years of watching football, at least what I know since I've been watching football instead of basketball, is that nobody gives a darn what UVA does on the gridiron. If football wasn't 85% of the money in Realignment, like, say, 20 years ago, then UVA to the SEC would make a whole lot of sense. I'd even bet a lot of money that the old time SEC powers that be would have loved a shot at UVA. However, it's a different world today, and mere proximity to another potential SEC school doesn't quite get it done.

But, you know, I could be wrong. Perhaps none of the SEC Presidents are very capable with a calculator, or at least 75% of them aren't, and they collectively decide to subsidize UVA from here to Kingdom Come b/c, you know, AAU and Geography. Lord knows my Aggies could use some more easy games, we looked like world beaters against Arkansas yesterday.

If all we want is an Academically superior partner for UNC then Duke is better. If all we want is quality football in Virginia with a big fb fanbase then VT is better. If we must have an AAU school to pair with UNC then Miami is lightyears better. If we still care about football enthusiasm then Clemson and FSU are both a million times better. Any way you slice it, UVA is the odd little duckling. Their one, tiny, faint hope, I suppose is that the B1G adds Miami + GT/Stanford/maybe even ND, then the SEC decides to just grab 4 all at once with UNC, FSU and Clemson the obvious first three and then, belatedly, reluctantly, we foolishly give that 20th spot to UVA instead of someone who can carry their own weight for the next 100 years.

You can't bring the ACC of your choice with you. If you're gonna leave, then leave, and let go of the barnacles.

Who would that be?