Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

(10-05-2026 12:05 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

The SEC and B1G have PLENTY of consumers. You and a lot of folks here look at expansion through the lens of a consumer, but there are other factors the powers that be are heavily considering.

(10-05-2026 12:13 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:05 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

The SEC and B1G have PLENTY of consumers. You and a lot of folks here look at expansion through the lens of a consumer, but there are other factors the powers that be are heavily considering.

I have little doubt the presidents have been saying that. But when the ADs talk to the networks, Virginia will be further down the list.

The Big Ten really wanted Stanford, but the networks weren't interested.

(10-05-2026 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:13 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:05 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

The SEC and B1G have PLENTY of consumers. You and a lot of folks here look at expansion through the lens of a consumer, but there are other factors the powers that be are heavily considering.

I have little doubt the presidents have been sayng that. But when the ADs talk to the networks, Virginia will be further down the list.

The Big Ten really wanted Stanford, but the networks weren't interested.

Bullett is right.

There's nothing to indicate that UNC and/or UVA would be anything other than drains on either the B10 or the SEC, at least when it comes to football (they have fantastic Olympic sports).

As for UNC's flagship status in NC: that status has never resulted in them carrying a majority of the state's college sports fandom. I posted an article a few pages back that supports such a conclusion.

At best, UNC carries 25-30% of the state's fandom. State and Duke (surprisingly) come in tied for second. After that, it's ECU, App and Wake in that order.

A large minority of the fans have allegiance to schools outside of our borders.

(10-05-2026 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:13 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:05 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

The SEC and B1G have PLENTY of consumers. You and a lot of folks here look at expansion through the lens of a consumer, but there are other factors the powers that be are heavily considering.

I have little doubt the presidents have been saying that. But when the ADs talk to the networks, Virginia will be further down the list.

The Big Ten really wanted Stanford, but the networks weren't interested.

Stanford is a redundant market because So Cal and UCLA garnered full carriage rates across California.

Yes, presidents like them, but UVa and Carolina add two new states plus DC suburbs to the SEC. Networks like that. AD's at some schools probably don't want to bring in Clemson and FSU on equal footing.

(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.

What I know about college football is that Indiana had a worse reputation than UVa. A perennial gridiron doormat program in the Big Ten. The Hoosiers were fortunate when they had more than one winning Big Ten conference record per decade.

In addition, team talent rankings was the gold standard in predicting national champions throughout this century. About half of national champions had a top 5 team talent ranking; and every champion was a top 20 talented program prior to Indiana in 2025. Then Indiana won last year’s championship with the #72 rated talent (per 247 Sports).

For historically weaker programs like Indiana, viewership doesn’t correlate linearly with winning…it takes the combination of winning plus some YoY consistency before viewership takes-off. Indiana’s total viewership trend (excluding bowls and CFP games)

2023 14.0M in 11 rated games (8 losses)
2024 14.2M in 12 rated games (9 losses)
2025 21.4M in 11 rated games (1 loss prior to CFP)
2026 41.7M in 9 rated games (0 losses prior to CFP)

You’re stuck in the old paradigm by rigorously pigeonholing programs.

(10-05-2026 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 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.

What I know about college football is that Indiana had a worse reputation than UVa. A perennial gridiron doormat program in the Big Ten. The Hoosiers were fortunate when they had more than one winning Big Ten conference record per decade.

In addition, team talent rankings was the gold standard in predicting national champions throughout this century. About half of national champions had a top 5 team talent ranking; and every champion was a top 20 talented program prior to Indiana in 2025. Then Indiana won last year’s championship with the #72 rated talent (per 247 Sports).

For historically weaker programs like Indiana, viewership doesn’t correlate linearly with winning…it takes the combination of winning plus some YoY consistency before viewership takes-off. Indiana’s total viewership trend (excluding bowls and CFP games)

2023 14.0M in 11 rated games (8 losses)
2024 14.2M in 12 rated games (9 losses)
2025 21.4M in 11 rated games (1 loss prior to CFP)
2026 41.7M in 9 rated games (0 losses prior to CFP)

You’re stuck in the old paradigm by rigorously pigeonholing programs.

Anybody does better when winning. But brands do pretty well even when losing.
Cignetti retires and IU goes back to 5-7 seasons and they are back to 14 million.

(10-05-2026 02:23 PM)Wahoowa84 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.

What I know about college football is that Indiana had a worse reputation than UVa. A perennial gridiron doormat program in the Big Ten. The Hoosiers were fortunate when they had more than one winning Big Ten conference record per decade.

In addition, team talent rankings was the gold standard in predicting national champions throughout this century. About half of national champions had a top 5 team talent ranking; and every champion was a top 20 talented program prior to Indiana in 2025. Then Indiana won last year’s championship with the #72 rated talent (per 247 Sports).

For historically weaker programs like Indiana, viewership doesn’t correlate linearly with winning…it takes the combination of winning plus some YoY consistency before viewership takes-off. Indiana’s total viewership trend (excluding bowls and CFP games)

2023 14.0M in 11 rated games (8 losses)
2024 14.2M in 12 rated games (9 losses)
2025 21.4M in 11 rated games (1 loss prior to CFP)
2026 41.7M in 9 rated games (0 losses prior to CFP)

You’re stuck in the old paradigm by rigorously pigeonholing programs.

The first two bids the SEC would extend would be for North Carolina & Virginia. Why? To be totally redundant because they are the 2 Flagship AAU schools in states totaling 20 million viewers in what historically is considered to be the South and each carries enough of its market to be as viable as the other in state schools which do not carry the pedigree of those two. I would not be shocked in the least if Duke got 1 of 4 bids. The big question would be Miami or FSU. That boils down to do you seek to reach a part of the state where you are weaker in viewership or do you simply seek the school with the second largest viewership total? I think that would be the only question the SEC would even have a debate about.

For those kicking 22 about that's where Clemson and Kansas enter the picture, or the third Florida school if the Big Ten hasn't taken them.

The SEC leads the nation in viewership and by a wide margin. We will be adding markets and academics and basketball content because one maxim remains true. When you can't add appreciably to your strengths, you strengthen your weaknesses. Only Notre Dame could add to the SEC's strengths without raiding the Big Ten which won't occur for numerous reasons. And adding Notre Dame is a myth. Therefore, we strengthen our weaknesses, basketball national awareness, and academics, and do so while piling on in diamond sports and markets. If we were stopping at 20, Duke, UNC, Virginia and Miami would be a great way to do it.

There are other reasons which I would not be comfortable discussing right now.

(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:  

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

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 like Dawgma's list. Maybe there's room to move some teams around and get Clemson above them but that's the point. Clemson pre 2008 (really 2012 or 13 a couple of years after they started to break through) was in the mix with a lot of good programs that weren't historically elite.

And I'm not really sure of the relevance of top 24 either. Maybe Clemson was top 24 over the first 130 years or so of CFB. And? What's the importance of 24?

I wouldn't argue that if I were building a 24, 20, or even 16 team SEC from scratch that Clemson would make the cut. For that matter, I'd trade them tomorrow for South Carolina if that were how this works. But it isn't. We already have SC, we don't need them.

TV money isn't everything and the Sic-Em analysis has limitations, but TV money is nearly everything and those ratings are pretty good indicators.
You have to remember what is important, that the schools add value to the conference, which is primarily financial, and 80% of the TV contract is football. Only 3 schools top the SEC or Big Ten average. And only 5 more are even within 20% of the Big Ten average. UNC is 37% below the Big Ten average and not even half the SEC average. UVA is 54% below the Big Ten average. Duke is 68% below the Big Ten average.

TV ratings 2013-2021 top 36 games:

7. Notre Dame 6.236 million
9. FSU 5.589
10. Clemson 5.419

Average SEC 4.780
Average Big Ten 3.723

23. Miami 3.62

24. Oklahoma St. 3.574

27. Stanford 3.236

28. Baylor 3.103
30. Virginia Tech 3.013
31. TCU 2.966
34. Louisville 2.855
38. West Virginia 2.587
41. Georgia Tech 2.385

42. North Carolina 2.355

43. Texas Tech 2.271
44. Utah 2.226
45. Pittsburg 2.08
46. Iowa St. 2.074
47. Arizona St. 2.054
48. Kansas St. 2.008
51. Syracuse 1.754

53. Virginia 1.717

54. North Carolina St. 1.708
55. BYU (as G school) 1.651
56. UCF (as G school) 1.629
57. Arizona 1.572
58. Cincinnati (as G school) 1.557
59. Colorado 1.549
NA Boston College 1.564 on only 35 games (1.520 if you assume 0 on a 36th game)
60. California 1.501
61. Houston (as G school) 1.409
65. Wake Forest 1.248

67. Duke 1.185
71. Kansas 0.876

73. SMU (as G school) 0.728

(10-05-2026 04:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  TV money isn't everything and the Sic-Em analysis has limitations, but TV money is nearly everything and those ratings are pretty good indicators.
You have to remember what is important, that the schools add value to the conference, which is primarily financial, and 80% of the TV contract is football. Only 3 schools top the SEC or Big Ten average. And only 5 more are even within 20% of the Big Ten average. UNC is 37% below the Big Ten average and not even half the SEC average. UVA is 54% below the Big Ten average. Duke is 68% below the Big Ten average.

TV ratings 2013-2021 top 36 games:

7. Notre Dame 6.236 million
9. FSU 5.589
10. Clemson 5.419

Average SEC 4.780
Average Big Ten 3.723

23. Miami 3.62

24. Oklahoma St. 3.574

27. Stanford 3.236

28. Baylor 3.103
30. Virginia Tech 3.013
31. TCU 2.966
34. Louisville 2.855
38. West Virginia 2.587
41. Georgia Tech 2.385

42. North Carolina 2.355

43. Texas Tech 2.271
44. Utah 2.226
45. Pittsburg 2.08
46. Iowa St. 2.074
47. Arizona St. 2.054
48. Kansas St. 2.008
51. Syracuse 1.754

53. Virginia 1.717

54. North Carolina St. 1.708
55. BYU (as G school) 1.651
56. UCF (as G school) 1.629
57. Arizona 1.572
58. Cincinnati (as G school) 1.557
59. Colorado 1.549
NA Boston College 1.564 on only 35 games (1.520 if you assume 0 on a 36th game)
60. California 1.501
61. Houston (as G school) 1.409
65. Wake Forest 1.248

67. Duke 1.185
71. Kansas 0.876

73. SMU (as G school) 0.728

Very interesting.

The four schools who have shown themselves to be invested parties—Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and North Carolina—seem to want enough spots to accommodate both themselves and some interested colleagues who are content for the moment to keep lower profiles.

On the face of the evidence, the first two places to look for those parties would be: (1) the Magnificent 7 plus (2) the California PAC refugees.

We already know schools in both groups will act on their aspirations.

Mag 7, north to south:
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina State
North Carolina
Clemson
Florida State
Miami

PAC refugees:
Cal
Stanford

The NC Board of Governors has long been exercising its own influence, as we know.

California, meanwhile, claims the largest state delegation in the House (52 reps). If you are Stanford or UC Berkeley and you want a P2 bid, no one needs to tell you to leverage that advantage. You’re already on it.

Florida has the third largest House delegation (28 reps), and in combination the Carolinas tie it.

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

(10-05-2026 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

Tennessee dominates Tennessee as Vandy is pretty much a non-factor and Memphis is hyperlocal. Clemson still splits the smaller state of SC with USC. Neyland also seats 20k more.

I have to imagine LSU is more like Tennessee than they are Clemson. Also, 20k more seats.

(10-05-2026 07:54 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

Tennessee dominates Tennessee as Vandy is pretty much a non-factor and Memphis is hyperlocal. Clemson still splits the smaller state of SC with USC. Neyland also seats 20k more.

I have to imagine LSU is more like Tennessee than they are Clemson. Also, 20k more seats.

What’s your point?
The vast majority of viewers nationally are not in state. A brand draws outside their state.

(10-05-2026 10:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Keep trying to convince me that UVA is the same as Carolina. Maybe Sankey will read this thread and pass on you guys, too.

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

Well, technically what they've reported is that 3 current SEC Presidents told them that UVA and UNC were the schools on the radar. 3 Presidents is miles and miles away from 12, especially when we're still at the flirting stage, comparable to when Cal and Stanford first started talking to the B1G but before the B1G did their due diligence. Let's see how many SEC Presidents are still bullish on UVA after looking at some numbers.

(10-05-2026 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:13 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 12:05 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

And who's in their ears? Not the consumers.

The SEC and B1G have PLENTY of consumers. You and a lot of folks here look at expansion through the lens of a consumer, but there are other factors the powers that be are heavily considering.

I have little doubt the presidents have been saying that. But when the ADs talk to the networks, Virginia will be further down the list.

The Big Ten really wanted Stanford, but the networks weren't interested.

This is the best part for me. The Academically-minded B1G passes on Cal and Stanford, both of which are clearly superior Academically to UVA, but the football-obsessed SEC completely switches gears and makes an addition that it's never made before, with a 100% focus on Academics and not a care in the world for the financial implications of the move? That's folly, or it would be if the Presidents were still whispering their adoration of UVA to Thamel and McMurphy after doing their due diligence.

Lurker above had a good point the other day, in that UVA does bring at least a portion of the State of Virginia, and a $40-60m valuation seems reasonable. Not SEC level valuation, but better than Cal and Stanford at least. Still perhaps only half of UNC, FSU, Miami, or Clemson, but not as terrible as their lack of football history and support would lead one to expect. The biggest problem there is that, if we're so determined to get into Virginia, why wouldn't we just add the school that already has a huge and rabid fanbase in VT? If UVA is worth $40-60m, then VT is probably more like $50-75m. Certainly if the B1G added Virginia, the SEC could add VT the next day and end up dominating the State in perpetuity.

(10-05-2026 08:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 07:54 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 08:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

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

(10-05-2026 08:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  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.

Tennessee dominates Tennessee as Vandy is pretty much a non-factor and Memphis is hyperlocal. Clemson still splits the smaller state of SC with USC. Neyland also seats 20k more.

I have to imagine LSU is more like Tennessee than they are Clemson. Also, 20k more seats.

What’s your point?
The vast majority of viewers nationally are not in state. A brand draws outside their state.

Clemson is not a larger brand than Tennessee and LSU. That's just common sense.

(10-06-2026 10:38 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 10:51 AM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  Will this happen?: "Oh look. UNC and UVA are playing each other in football. Let's watch. They're AAU and flagships!!"
And convince me a SEC/B1G unc is 'brand' enough to carry the entire state.

Reach out to the industry insiders who have been reporting it the last three years or so.

Well, technically what they've reported is that 3 current SEC Presidents told them that UVA and UNC were the schools on the radar. 3 Presidents is miles and miles away from 12, especially when we're still at the flirting stage, comparable to when Cal and Stanford first started talking to the B1G but before the B1G did their due diligence. Let's see how many SEC Presidents are still bullish on UVA after looking at some numbers.

Technically, it was ESPN employees Pete Thamel, Chris Low, and Paul Finebaum, plus everyone's favorites McMurphy and Dellenger.