(04-06-2025 03:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  What if FSU decides to go to the B1G?

Obviously they won’t pay $163M to join for a “half bowl of soup” as the Texas State AD or President recently said in reference to the PAC offering them a reduced share to join and help pay for Gonzaga getting a full share without a football program. Rumors suggest fsu would get around 75% share and assistance for the exit fee/separation costs. Now this is the only advantage the B1G would have over the SEC in negotiations with ACC schools. Granted, the SEC won’t-or hasn’t historically, helped any new member financially transition into the conference, but the SEC does make that school a full member from day one; full voting rights and full earnings share.

Besides, FSU might not even have the votes as Georgia, who is supposedly the driving force to add North Carolina, is strictly opposed to adding the ‘noles and leading that group of detractors. Anyway, let’s assume the votes are there for FSU and Clemson. So when UNC and UVA become available, assuming those two are “tied at the hip, Sankey presents those two new additions to ESpN who says the sec needs more value to get a deal done by suggesting expanding at once with two more: FSU and CU. FSU shops its deal to the B1G whose TV partners, mostly Fox, will scramble to find money to pay for FSU plus one. Warchant and other FSU media sites are saying FSU is being offereD around a 75% share until next TV contract where the ‘noles, huskies and ducks are expected to get full shares. I’m guessing the B1G would dig into their big fat check book and help cover some exit costs to try and secure the ‘noles and Miami as teams 19 and 20.

So assuming Big Ten grabs FSU and Miami, who would the SEC round off expansion with if UNC, UVA and Clemson are secured? I would prefer the dark horse candidate Duke. Kansas is an excellent option too, not sure how tough it would be to exit the Big 12. Wonder what this board thinks today and are there any SEC realignment insiders out there to follow?

Have no fear. The Big 10 has no advantages in picking up Florida State because there is resistance among some of their presidents to the whole idea. FSU is not AAU and not close to becoming AAU in spite of all of the hot air on the topic. The AAU is a closed system unless they vote to expand beyond current membership. If they did (which they won't because they voted to expand 2 years ago and this seldom has happened) FSU would find its attributes listed behind about 7 other schools. The Big 10 may talk FSU, but their target in Florida is Miami.

Second. The SEC loaned Missouri money to help them transition to the SEC. So it has done so in the past.

Third. The "Gentlemen's Agreement" was a 180 from what Clay Travis trumpeted. Slive asked the presidents of Florida and South Carolina not to nominate Clemson and FSU until the renegotiation clause of the SEC was fulfilled with the additions of Texas A&M and Missouri and afterward, he said no prohibitions would be in place to deny entry to a SEC member's request to add an in-state rival. Florida nominated FSU in 1991 and again in 2011 prompting Slive's request when the South Carolina president, Pastides, also wanted to nominate Clemson. To my knowledge Georgia isn't the least bit concerned about FSU. These are mostly things concocted out of thin air and then circled in discussion by internet gurus wanting You-Tube traffic.

The Big 10's wish list would include, and likely in order, Notre Dame, Miami, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, and possibly Virginia.

Your hypothetical won't come to pass. But if the SEC prioritized North Carolina, Virginia (more likely Virginia Tech if dollars matter and they usually do) and Clemson either of your dark horses would be a great way for the conference to wrap up at 20.

SEC insiders and Big 10 insiders do not exist. Neither conference discusses anything that Presidents consider behind closed doors and no ADs are briefed on realignment decisions until a school has been accepted. Big Mountain claims their source is an AD. So what? They don't know until it is done. All discussion from "insiders" is pure B.S. I did know somethings, but half a dozen or so years after the fact which transpired in the SEC dealings of 1991 and a little bit in 2011. I never knew anything in advance, but did hear the logic and reasoning behind the additions which were made when most of that information would have been no longer forbidden to know (except for votes), and even then I only learned anything from family which were involved, and I already knew some of the people involved so just knowing them and how they thought or approached particular subjects was informative in retrospect.

The SEC's first priority list included: Arkansas, Clemson, Florida State, Oklahoma (then silent partner of Texas), Texas, and Texas A&M. And that list was generated between 1990 and 91 and before any serious talks began (other than with Texas where talks may have been ongoing as early as 1987).

Broyles and the SWC members saw that they had no shot at larger media payouts under the footprint model which paid the best rates for top schools in a state and not so much for duplicates. A&M was in the discussion because Texas was a whopping state and if UT was going to consider a move it needed to include Arkansas, A&M and Oklahoma. When did Texas finally join? After A&M and Arkansas had already joined the SEC and Oklahoma was willing to do the same.

In 1991 Clemson was seen as a bridge to North Carolina. UNC wasn't a primary target in 1991 only because nobody in the SEC thought they could get them. UNC was seen as a long-range acquisition. The SEC recognized in 1991 that a second Florida school was eventually going to be needed in order to carry that state and more importantly to protect the Deep South as SEC territory. I don't think any of that has changed. Tallahassee was logical as it was within easy driving distance of many SEC schools at that time. Miami was considered a world away and the SEC didn't particularly want privates. Miami today would be a different matter, but FSU is still the better fit.

We now have 4 of those six targets as full members. South Carolina took Clemson's place, and I guess you could say Missouri took FSU's place.

If we expand to 20, I'd expect North Carolina and either a mandated N.C. State, or one of their two buddies (Duke or Virginia). Clemson would be a logical choice in an expansion to 24 due to commitment, attendance, and overall fit within the South. But Clemson would not be an urgent addition because the Big 10 will not consider them.

I don't think UNC is ready to move but they have been in ardent conversations about it with both the SEC and Big 10. They talked to the SEC first three days after the OU/UT news broke.

I see things shaking out another way. FOX and ESPN want to expand the CFP to 14 games, possibly even 16. They want a scheduling agreement between the SEC and Big 10 to drive ratings numbers through the season thereby increasing their profits and frankly pressuring a few schools to consider joining one or the other conferences. What they don't want right now is a rancor over another round of expansion. What they do want is as much parity between the SEC and Big 10 as they can work out. Scheduling agreements are easier when there are equal numbers of schools involved. FSU wants out ASAP. ESPN knows this and doesn't want to lose their leverage over the state of Florida. If FSU joins the SEC and ESPN helps to facilitate that move, then ESPN is assured of top ad rates in Florida no matter what Miami subsequently chooses to do. And, outside of the ACC there is only one school from the old Big 12 not yet accounted for, but which ESPN was willing to offer a sweetheart T3 deal in order to keep more access to them, Kansas.

For these reasons I can see the SEC moving to 18 within a couple of years, matching the Big 10's membership and inventory (remember in all things the number of schools represents a voting presence on matters so equal numbers are needed to have an equal voice in decisions), and doing so with Kansas and FSU. The Big 10 didn't want Kansas because they carried much of their market without having to add them. And the Big 10 doesn't really want FSU, what they want is for the SEC and ESPN to worry about FSU and take them figuring the SEC and ESPN won't triple down in Florida with the states of North Carolina and Virginia at stake, and that is very sound strategy on their part. So, the Big 10 feigns interest in FSU in hopes that ESPN and the SEC will take them for their own reasons leaving Miami open for the Big 10. That also solves any debate among Big 10 presidents as to who to add from Florida. And Miami might well be unnecessary for ESPN to protect if FSU and UF are safely in the SEC.

If this happens then by 2029 or 30 the SEC and Big 10 will be in a position to move to 22 or 24 and the entire focus will be upon the ACC. Notre Dame, Miami, Stanford, and California will still be appealing to the Big 10. North Carolina, a Virginia school, and Clemson appealing to the SEC. If Duke or Georgia Tech want in the SEC has choice as to who is #4. If the move is to 24 the SEC has room to encourage UNC and Virginia with N.C. State or Virginia Tech. The Big 10 could then look to Colorado and Arizona State. But either way you want to take it if the SEC and Big 10 are both at 18 within a year or two then decisions about the CFP and any scheduling agreement will be much easier to handle. And both the SEC and Big 10 will have their key targets still available. It also leaves ESPN the option to pick up Big East basketball and add it to the ACC where Clemson and Miami's presence is needed for strength of schedule to keep Notre Dame as an affiliate. And if that happened, we may well settle in at 18 each for the SEC and Big 10, keeping the Big 12 and ACC separate and with each adding basketball only schools to help with their revenue and in the ACC's case their network.

Kick that around and tell me what you think.

Now back to insiders. Dudes with nothing to lose are sometimes fed disinformation by the conferences so the conference can judge fan response to ideas before the presidents have to make a decision. That's the only insider information that there is, and it is either used to misdirect the public's attention or to gauge its response.