(10-06-2026 02:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 01:44 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:50 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Clemson is not a larger brand than Tennessee and LSU. That's just common sense.

That's not common sense at all. It may be true, but they are pretty close:

TV ratings 2013-21 (average of top 36 games):
6 LSU 6.636 million
10 Clemson 5.419 million
17 Tennessee 4.377 million

National Titles recognized outside of Knoxville (I think Tennessee claims every title not claimed by Alabama):
LSU 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 2

Top 3 finishes 1961-2025:
13 Tie Clemson 6
14 Tie LSU 5
19-23 Tie Tennessee 3

Top 5 finishes 1961-2025
15-18 tie Clemson 7
15-18 tie LSU 7
15-18 tie Tennessee 7
(other tied is Auburn-behind 1-14 Ohio St., Alabama, OU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, FSU, Penn St., Nebraska, Michigan, Miami FL, Georgia, Florida, Oregon)

TV ratings don't tell the entire story because they are extremely nuanced and based on a lot of different variables including opponent and network/channel. Also, rankings are not indicative of brand strength either. Fanbase, however, is.

Walk into Neyland Stadium on game day and tell me that Tennessee doesn't have a larger fanbase than Clemson. I am not even sure Clemson has more fans than USC. At least those county maps don't back it up.



Clemson outside of Dabo is a tweener top 25 caliber brand. That's it. Also, it looks like their flame is growing dimmer by the season. Tell me you saw that game vs Miami?

For brand we are talking about people who will watch nationally, not how many people attend their games. Miami is without a doubt a top 20 brand nationally, but their local fan base pales in comparison to the other top 20 brands. Same for Oregon.
4 year average attendance. Kentucky, Iowa St., Purdue and probably South Carolina are not top 30 brands, even though they are top 30 in attendance. Oregon and Miami don't make the top 30. A bigger local fan base doesn't guarantee more people will watch you nationally.
Clemson is #14, ahead of Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a top 5 brand, not #16.
1 Michigan 110,402
2 Penn State 107,815
3 Ohio State 104,194
4 Texas 101,655
5 Tennessee 101,569
6 Texas A&M 101,363
7 LSU 100,608
8 Alabama 99,803
9 Georgia 92,890
10 Florida 89,227
11 Auburn 87,333
12 Nebraska 86,722
13 Oklahoma 83,655
14 Clemson 80,494
15 South Carolina 78,070
16 Notre Dame 77,265
17 Wisconsin 74,003
18 Arkansas 70,407
19 Iowa 69,250
20 Michigan State 68,739
21 Southern Cal 67,478
22 Washington 67,213
23 Florida State 66,330
24 Mississippi 65,088
25 Virginia Tech 63,592
26 BYU 62,064
27 Kentucky 59,631
28 Iowa State 59,119
29 Missouri 58,664
30 Purdue 57,961

I’d be interested to compare 5/10/15 year tv numbers and attendance of Clemson vs ND vs UVA. Esayem either has his mind made up on the topic or he has an agenda here, nothing we post is going to convince that Clemson is an actual football Brand, or that water is wet for that matter.

Clemson has pretty consistently been around 80k for the last 20 years. Notre Dame dropped from a consistent 80,795 2016 and prior (stadium renovations lowering capacity slightly?). UVA has been 38k-48k since 2008. They were regularly above 50k for the decade prior to that.

(10-06-2026 03:46 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 03:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:07 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 01:52 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  "Twenty-one House members signed this letter encouraging House leadership to amend the expansion provision of the PCSA, led by Florida Reps. Neal Dunn and Mario Díaz-Balart.

13 from Florida

4 South Carolina

4 North Carolina"

Quick question. How many voting members of the House are there?

There's 429 voting members. Why do you ask?

Not sure where that number comes from. Multiple online sources say there are 435 voting seats in the House with two currently unoccupied. There may have been more vacancies previously I suppose.

435 is the total this decade, yes. Sometimes we read “535 elected representatives in Congress” when the site is including both chambers.

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

Anyway, as mentioned, the pressure we see so far in the House is all upwards. Reps are discussing a conference cap of at least 20.

___

435 is correct. I orignally looked it up to verify and missread; there are 6 non-voting members, delegates and commissioners of DC, PR and other US territories.

Guys, it's been 435 for all of our lifetimes, unless someone out there was born before 1929 when the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was passed.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Hig...t-of-1929/

(10-06-2026 06:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 01:44 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's not common sense at all. It may be true, but they are pretty close:

TV ratings 2013-21 (average of top 36 games):
6 LSU 6.636 million
10 Clemson 5.419 million
17 Tennessee 4.377 million

National Titles recognized outside of Knoxville (I think Tennessee claims every title not claimed by Alabama):
LSU 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 2

Top 3 finishes 1961-2025:
13 Tie Clemson 6
14 Tie LSU 5
19-23 Tie Tennessee 3

Top 5 finishes 1961-2025
15-18 tie Clemson 7
15-18 tie LSU 7
15-18 tie Tennessee 7
(other tied is Auburn-behind 1-14 Ohio St., Alabama, OU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, FSU, Penn St., Nebraska, Michigan, Miami FL, Georgia, Florida, Oregon)

TV ratings don't tell the entire story because they are extremely nuanced and based on a lot of different variables including opponent and network/channel. Also, rankings are not indicative of brand strength either. Fanbase, however, is.

Walk into Neyland Stadium on game day and tell me that Tennessee doesn't have a larger fanbase than Clemson. I am not even sure Clemson has more fans than USC. At least those county maps don't back it up.



Clemson outside of Dabo is a tweener top 25 caliber brand. That's it. Also, it looks like their flame is growing dimmer by the season. Tell me you saw that game vs Miami?

For brand we are talking about people who will watch nationally, not how many people attend their games. Miami is without a doubt a top 20 brand nationally, but their local fan base pales in comparison to the other top 20 brands. Same for Oregon.
4 year average attendance. Kentucky, Iowa St., Purdue and probably South Carolina are not top 30 brands, even though they are top 30 in attendance. Oregon and Miami don't make the top 30. A bigger local fan base doesn't guarantee more people will watch you nationally.
Clemson is #14, ahead of Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a top 5 brand, not #16.
1 Michigan 110,402
2 Penn State 107,815
3 Ohio State 104,194
4 Texas 101,655
5 Tennessee 101,569
6 Texas A&M 101,363
7 LSU 100,608
8 Alabama 99,803
9 Georgia 92,890
10 Florida 89,227
11 Auburn 87,333
12 Nebraska 86,722
13 Oklahoma 83,655
14 Clemson 80,494
15 South Carolina 78,070
16 Notre Dame 77,265
17 Wisconsin 74,003
18 Arkansas 70,407
19 Iowa 69,250
20 Michigan State 68,739
21 Southern Cal 67,478
22 Washington 67,213
23 Florida State 66,330
24 Mississippi 65,088
25 Virginia Tech 63,592
26 BYU 62,064
27 Kentucky 59,631
28 Iowa State 59,119
29 Missouri 58,664
30 Purdue 57,961

I’d be interested to compare 5/10/15 year tv numbers and attendance of Clemson vs ND vs UVA. Esayem either has his mind made up on the topic or he has an agenda here, nothing we post is going to convince that Clemson is an actual football Brand, or that water is wet for that matter.

Clemson has pretty consistently been around 80k for the last 20 years. Notre Dame dropped from a consistent 80,795 2016 and prior (stadium renovations lowering capacity slightly?). UVA has been 38k-48k since 2008. They were regularly above 50k for the decade prior to that.

Without digging into every game for all 3 teams over the last 15 years, I'd also wager that Clemson and ND have had pretty similar tv numbers, while UVA has been very near the bottom of the entire P5/4 during that time period.

edit: And I just want to reiterate my huge amount of respect for Tennessee. I do not think it's an insult to compare them to Clemson, nor do I think fans of either school would take it as such. Esayem is just looking for things to argue about.

Due to the variety of state rules on filling vacancies, it is not unusual for the number of voting members to fall short of the total number of seats. Presently 2 seats are vacant, so there are presently 433 voting members.

Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

(10-06-2026 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 01:44 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:50 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Clemson is not a larger brand than Tennessee and LSU. That's just common sense.

That's not common sense at all. It may be true, but they are pretty close:

TV ratings 2013-21 (average of top 36 games):
6 LSU 6.636 million
10 Clemson 5.419 million
17 Tennessee 4.377 million

National Titles recognized outside of Knoxville (I think Tennessee claims every title not claimed by Alabama):
LSU 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 2

Top 3 finishes 1961-2025:
13 Tie Clemson 6
14 Tie LSU 5
19-23 Tie Tennessee 3

Top 5 finishes 1961-2025
15-18 tie Clemson 7
15-18 tie LSU 7
15-18 tie Tennessee 7
(other tied is Auburn-behind 1-14 Ohio St., Alabama, OU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, FSU, Penn St., Nebraska, Michigan, Miami FL, Georgia, Florida, Oregon)

TV ratings don't tell the entire story because they are extremely nuanced and based on a lot of different variables including opponent and network/channel. Also, rankings are not indicative of brand strength either. Fanbase, however, is.

Walk into Neyland Stadium on game day and tell me that Tennessee doesn't have a larger fanbase than Clemson. I am not even sure Clemson has more fans than USC. At least those county maps don't back it up.



Clemson outside of Dabo is a tweener top 25 caliber brand. That's it. Also, it looks like their flame is growing dimmer by the season. Tell me you saw that game vs Miami?

For brand we are talking about people who will watch nationally, not how many people attend their games. Miami is without a doubt a top 20 brand nationally, but their local fan base pales in comparison to the other top 20 brands. Same for Oregon.
4 year average attendance. Kentucky, Iowa St., Purdue and probably South Carolina are not top 30 brands, even though they are top 30 in attendance. Oregon and Miami don't make the top 30. A bigger local fan base doesn't guarantee more people will watch you nationally.
Clemson is #14, ahead of Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a top 5 brand, not #16.
1 Michigan 110,402
2 Penn State 107,815
3 Ohio State 104,194
4 Texas 101,655
5 Tennessee 101,569
6 Texas A&M 101,363
7 LSU 100,608
8 Alabama 99,803
9 Georgia 92,890
10 Florida 89,227
11 Auburn 87,333
12 Nebraska 86,722
13 Oklahoma 83,655
14 Clemson 80,494
15 South Carolina 78,070
16 Notre Dame 77,265
17 Wisconsin 74,003
18 Arkansas 70,407
19 Iowa 69,250
20 Michigan State 68,739
21 Southern Cal 67,478
22 Washington 67,213
23 Florida State 66,330
24 Mississippi 65,088
25 Virginia Tech 63,592
26 BYU 62,064
27 Kentucky 59,631
28 Iowa State 59,119
29 Missouri 58,664
30 Purdue 57,961

Oregon's stadium is undersized. They'd absolutely be higher if they had the seats.

(10-06-2026 06:59 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 03:46 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 03:11 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:07 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  There's 429 voting members. Why do you ask?

Not sure where that number comes from. Multiple online sources say there are 435 voting seats in the House with two currently unoccupied. There may have been more vacancies previously I suppose.

435 is the total this decade, yes. Sometimes we read “535 elected representatives in Congress” when the site is including both chambers.

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

Anyway, as mentioned, the pressure we see so far in the House is all upwards. Reps are discussing a conference cap of at least 20.

___

435 is correct. I orignally looked it up to verify and missread; there are 6 non-voting members, delegates and commissioners of DC, PR and other US territories.

Guys, it's been 435 for all of our lifetimes, unless someone out there was born before 1929 when the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was passed.

https://history.house.gov/Historical-Hig...t-of-1929/

Technically speaking, it would have temporarily increased by two when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted, before returning to 435 after the following census and reapportionment.

(10-06-2026 07:03 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  edit: And I just want to reiterate my huge amount of respect for Tennessee. I do not think it's an insult to compare them to Clemson, nor do I think fans of either school would take it as such. Esayem is just looking for things to argue about.

I grew up watching Clemson and now am subject to the Vols. I feel like I have a pretty solid research agenda here.

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. So my theory of protecting NC State can be thrown out the window lol

A P1 would not benefit Carolina.

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

(10-07-2026 07:17 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

Totally and completely disagree.

This sounds like UNC wanting as easy of a path out of the ACC as possible and the “prevention of superconferences” rhetoric about supporting an expansion cap is really more wanting to pull up the ladder behind them (where the cap is just large enough to make them feel comfortable that the Big Ten and SEC will expand where UNC ends up in one of them but not so much expansion where UNC isn’t “special”).

(10-07-2026 07:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:17 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

Totally and completely disagree.

This sounds like UNC wanting as easy of a path out of the ACC as possible and the “prevention of superconferences” rhetoric about supporting an expansion cap is really more wanting to pull up the ladder behind them (where the cap is just large enough to make them feel comfortable that the Big Ten and SEC will expand where UNC ends up in one of them but not so much expansion where UNC isn’t “special”).

(10-06-2026 07:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Due to the variety of state rules on filling vacancies, it is not unusual for the number of voting members to fall short of the total number of seats. Presently 2 seats are vacant, so there are presently 433 voting members.

Senate vacancies are filled right away via an appointment by the governor in most states. Lindsey Graham died and his sister took office three days later.

House vacancies seem to take their time. A special election is held but there is no strict timeline. The two vacancies both happened in April when each party lost a member for being sleazy, one in Texas and one in Florida. The Texas guy resigned the same day as Eric Swalwell but Swalwell’s seat was filled last month.

(10-07-2026 10:28 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 07:08 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Due to the variety of state rules on filling vacancies, it is not unusual for the number of voting members to fall short of the total number of seats. Presently 2 seats are vacant, so there are presently 433 voting members.

Senate vacancies are filled right away via an appointment by the governor in most states. Lindsey Graham died and his sister took office three days later.

House vacancies seem to take their time. A special election is held but there is no strict timeline. The two vacancies both happened in April when each party lost a member for being sleazy, one in Texas and one in Florida. The Texas guy resigned the same day as Eric Swalwell but Swalwell’s seat was filled last month.

State laws determine how Congressional vacancies are handled. State laws do vary.

(10-07-2026 07:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:17 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

Totally and completely disagree.

This sounds like UNC wanting as easy of a path out of the ACC as possible and the “prevention of superconferences” rhetoric about supporting an expansion cap is really more wanting to pull up the ladder behind them (where the cap is just large enough to make them feel comfortable that the Big Ten and SEC will expand where UNC ends up in one of them but not so much expansion where UNC isn’t “special”).

Let's be Frank, the "super conference" he is concerned with preventing is a P1.

(10-07-2026 10:39 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:17 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

Totally and completely disagree.

This sounds like UNC wanting as easy of a path out of the ACC as possible and the “prevention of superconferences” rhetoric about supporting an expansion cap is really more wanting to pull up the ladder behind them (where the cap is just large enough to make them feel comfortable that the Big Ten and SEC will expand where UNC ends up in one of them but not so much expansion where UNC isn’t “special”).

Let's be Frank, the "super conference" he is concerned with preventing is a P1.

Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 10:39 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:17 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 10:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Interesting perspective on one aspect of Section 205:

North Carolina athletic director Steve Newmark told The News & Observer Saturday that UNC is in support of the Protect College Sports Act, and said “we actually agree” with a conference cap as a way of preventing the development of super-conferences. But it’s the independence clause that the school takes issue with, and Newmark said he’s yet to hear an answer as to why it’s included.

“That’s never existed before. Ever,” Newmark told The N&O. “Why would you have that you have to go be without a conference. (That) doesn’t make any sense.”

Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll...04196.html

My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

Totally and completely disagree.

This sounds like UNC wanting as easy of a path out of the ACC as possible and the “prevention of superconferences” rhetoric about supporting an expansion cap is really more wanting to pull up the ladder behind them (where the cap is just large enough to make them feel comfortable that the Big Ten and SEC will expand where UNC ends up in one of them but not so much expansion where UNC isn’t “special”).

Let's be Frank, the "super conference" he is concerned with preventing is a P1.

Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Reading between the lines, a cap of 20 is really a cap of 18/19 in operation. A cap of 22 is really a cap of 20 in operation. Neither the B1G nor the SEC will max out. Take that to the bank. Beyond 20 is really the Land of Diminishing Returns, but that's another argument entirely.

There is a scenario where one of the four schools could be left out of B1G/SEC expansion with the cap at 20 if my premise is correct. For instance, the SEC could expand with Clemson and FSU while the B1G only expands with Miami.

(10-06-2026 06:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 01:44 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-06-2026 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's not common sense at all. It may be true, but they are pretty close:

TV ratings 2013-21 (average of top 36 games):
6 LSU 6.636 million
10 Clemson 5.419 million
17 Tennessee 4.377 million

National Titles recognized outside of Knoxville (I think Tennessee claims every title not claimed by Alabama):
LSU 4
Clemson 3
Tennessee 2

Top 3 finishes 1961-2025:
13 Tie Clemson 6
14 Tie LSU 5
19-23 Tie Tennessee 3

Top 5 finishes 1961-2025
15-18 tie Clemson 7
15-18 tie LSU 7
15-18 tie Tennessee 7
(other tied is Auburn-behind 1-14 Ohio St., Alabama, OU, Texas, USC, Notre Dame, FSU, Penn St., Nebraska, Michigan, Miami FL, Georgia, Florida, Oregon)

TV ratings don't tell the entire story because they are extremely nuanced and based on a lot of different variables including opponent and network/channel. Also, rankings are not indicative of brand strength either. Fanbase, however, is.

Walk into Neyland Stadium on game day and tell me that Tennessee doesn't have a larger fanbase than Clemson. I am not even sure Clemson has more fans than USC. At least those county maps don't back it up.



Clemson outside of Dabo is a tweener top 25 caliber brand. That's it. Also, it looks like their flame is growing dimmer by the season. Tell me you saw that game vs Miami?

For brand we are talking about people who will watch nationally, not how many people attend their games. Miami is without a doubt a top 20 brand nationally, but their local fan base pales in comparison to the other top 20 brands. Same for Oregon.
4 year average attendance. Kentucky, Iowa St., Purdue and probably South Carolina are not top 30 brands, even though they are top 30 in attendance. Oregon and Miami don't make the top 30. A bigger local fan base doesn't guarantee more people will watch you nationally.
Clemson is #14, ahead of Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a top 5 brand, not #16.
1 Michigan 110,402
2 Penn State 107,815
3 Ohio State 104,194
4 Texas 101,655
5 Tennessee 101,569
6 Texas A&M 101,363
7 LSU 100,608
8 Alabama 99,803
9 Georgia 92,890
10 Florida 89,227
11 Auburn 87,333
12 Nebraska 86,722
13 Oklahoma 83,655
14 Clemson 80,494
15 South Carolina 78,070
16 Notre Dame 77,265
17 Wisconsin 74,003
18 Arkansas 70,407
19 Iowa 69,250
20 Michigan State 68,739
21 Southern Cal 67,478
22 Washington 67,213
23 Florida State 66,330
24 Mississippi 65,088
25 Virginia Tech 63,592
26 BYU 62,064
27 Kentucky 59,631
28 Iowa State 59,119
29 Missouri 58,664
30 Purdue 57,961

I’d be interested to compare 5/10/15 year tv numbers and attendance of Clemson vs ND vs UVA. Esayem either has his mind made up on the topic or he has an agenda here, nothing we post is going to convince that Clemson is an actual football Brand, or that water is wet for that matter.

Clemson has pretty consistently been around 80k for the last 20 years. Notre Dame dropped from a consistent 80,795 2016 and prior (stadium renovations lowering capacity slightly?). UVA has been 38k-48k since 2008. They were regularly above 50k for the decade prior to that.

Yes, the "Crossroads Project" stadium renovations completed in 2017 reduced the seating capacity by around 3,000.


https://slamcoll.com/portfolio/universit...rossroads/

(10-07-2026 11:20 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 11:09 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 10:39 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-07-2026 07:17 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  My quick take on this is that it sounds more like UNC is planning on staying in the ACC and that he wants to be able to more easily expand -most likely from the B12, being that they are the only other conference whose members would be affected by the independence requirement- after others defect.

Totally and completely disagree.

This sounds like UNC wanting as easy of a path out of the ACC as possible and the “prevention of superconferences” rhetoric about supporting an expansion cap is really more wanting to pull up the ladder behind them (where the cap is just large enough to make them feel comfortable that the Big Ten and SEC will expand where UNC ends up in one of them but not so much expansion where UNC isn’t “special”).

Let's be Frank, the "super conference" he is concerned with preventing is a P1.

Need to remove the rose-colored glasses on this specific issue. Historically, UNC had always been anti-expansion. Now the UNC-Ch Chancellor is being very transparent…increasing the cap and eliminating the independence requirement enables more realignment.

What’s interesting to me is that only 4 out of the 14 NC representatives in the US House provided cover for UNC-Ch’s approach. Folks in Raleigh, Wilmington, Charlotte, etc. may have different concerns. Although Durham can be silently supportive, the Winston-Salem contingent can be more influential.

Reading between the lines, a cap of 20 is really a cap of 18/19 in operation. A cap of 22 is really a cap of 20 in operation. Neither the B1G nor the SEC will max out. Take that to the bank. Beyond 20 is really the Land of Diminishing Returns, but that's another argument entirely.

There is a scenario where one of the four schools could be left out of B1G/SEC expansion with the cap at 20 if my premise is correct. For instance, the SEC could expand with Clemson and FSU while the B1G only expands with Miami.

There's not going to be a P1. What has been discussed is a P2 that negotiates as 1 for leverage in matters upon which they concur. To have a voice that can participate in the decisions they make together it will be necessary to be in one of them since they will likely function as their own tier whether they are called one or not.

(10-05-2026 02:22 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(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:  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.

And, we're circling back to, They don't add enough of two new states, especially with the influx of out-of-staters.