The SEC is doing fine with the teams it has in its footprint right now.

Expanding outside of the footprint isn't going to reap the rewards everyone thinks it will.

But, hey, what do I know?

(10-26-2025 01:08 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  The SEC is doing fine with the teams it has in its footprint right now.

Expanding outside of the footprint isn't going to reap the rewards everyone thinks it will.

But, hey, what do I know?

When has the B1G had a greater opportunity to raid inside our footprint?

(10-26-2025 01:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 01:08 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  The SEC is doing fine with the teams it has in its footprint right now.

Expanding outside of the footprint isn't going to reap the rewards everyone thinks it will.

But, hey, what do I know?

When has the B1G had a greater opportunity to raid inside our footprint?

What the BIG does is their problem. I'm not going to go all NIMBY if they decide to add North Carolina and Virginia.

I only care about what Tennessee does, and whether or not they can be successful. Besides, I'd rather see Tennessee play Clemson and Florida State over North Carolina and Virginia anyway.

(10-26-2025 12:52 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 12:25 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 08:56 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 07:08 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I mean I personally think the only expansion move. that really makes sense. is the SEC adding Ohio State, Michigan USC and either Notre Dame or Penn State.

The average value of the Big tenon SEC have risen to the point where additions from outside the P2 don't make sense unless it's Notre Dame

Why in the world would the SEC ever consider going coast to coast?

It's about the only thing they can do that significantly increases their average value.

And only USC would be non-contiguous -- Michigan and Pennsylania border Ohio which borders Kentucky.

You would have your "Super League", entirely within the SEC, which would quickly constitute a tier of college athletics unto themselves. They might or might not need the NCAA and CFP At that point, they might just organize SEC championships that are effectively national championships, the 20 Super-SEC schools would constitute a reasonable bargaining unit to stand up a coherent players union (or separate unions for football and everything-else, or maybe football, basketball and everything-else) and get their labor situation straight.

While what you suggest has been subjected to a think tank type of analysis, I believe that concept has been rejected for good reason. Big Ten vs SEC sells a helluva lot better than a mish mash of the top of the Big Ten with the SEC which would alienate viewers in the North and South, and the win / loss bell curve that would result from so few schools in participation would alienate those fan bases as well, especially since they all expect to win the overwhelming number of their contests.

Now toss in the fact that the SEC decided long ago to keep its extremely strong regional identity which doesn't cause harm to its #1 national audience, and the appetite for such a concept simply doesn't exist. Which is why it will focus on locking down the Southeast with an eye on the Southwest.

Never underestimate the power of greed school presidents have. They’ll do anything for the almighty $$$$. Greed trumps regionalism, rivalries, history, tradition, common sense, etc.

Nothing……absolutely nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to realignment.

Most of the Power Conference Presidents are smart. It's the Group Conference, and the FCS/Mid-Major Basketball Conference Presidents that are not.

Why? Because they only care about chasing money they are never going to get or see a single cent of.

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I agree except for the quantity. The reason is to get all the remaining powers. There are 19 schools that have dominated the top of the rankings all the way back to 1960. 8 are in the SEC, 7 are in the Big Ten. The other 4 are Notre Dame, Miami, FSU and Clemson. Those 19 have all but 3 titles and all but 17 of the 192 top 3 finishes in those 64 years.

The last time someone outside that group won a title was 1990 when Colorado won the AP and Georgia Tech the coaches. Before that it was 1984 when BYU was the only unbeaten and due to the bowl tie-ins, a 6-5 Michigan was their bowl opponent. They would not have won a playoff. Before that it was 1977 when Pitt had Tony Dorsett from a 105 man freshman class. The NCAA shortly thereafter put limits on class sizes and stockpiling players. 1961 looked a lot like current years-1 Alabama, 2 Ohio St., 3 Texas, 4 LSU. You have to go back to 1960 for when things were definitely different. Current SEC and Big Ten teams were 8 of the top 9, but the top 3 were Minnesota, Ole Miss and Iowa, not Ohio St., Alabama and Michigan. (Ohio St. and Alabama were 8 and 9 that year just ahead of Duke and Kansas!). 1959 Syracuse won.

TV ratings have Notre Dame, FSU and Clemson near the top. Miami is very high. The Sic-Em 2013-21 analysis had ND 7, FSU 9, Clemson 10 and Miami 23. All time won/loss, they are ND 4, FSU 13 (12 excluding G schools), Miami 18 (14 excluding G schools) and Clemson 21 (16 excluding G schools). Among P4 schools, the 19 powers are the top 18 plus #28 (Oregon who is 40th among all schools). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divis...ss_records

You could look at UNC for basketball, markets and to balance out adding another traditional football power.

The upside for the SEC is that it has a lot of leverage now. Football and media are driving college athletics, and the SEC has the best football and best ratings. Whatever they need or want, an enviable window of opportunity for expansion is likely open.

If the SEC believes that conferences become unstable with additional members, then it can hold steady at 16 schools. The B1G and ACC are both gambling with larger, more diverse conferences. Unequal revenue sharing is just one issue that generates controversy in larger conferences. The safer route is generally the status quo for the time being.

If history repeats itself, the B1G’s leverage likely grows as their July 2030 media contract renewal approaches.

To those talking about "dominating a timeslot", adding 24 or 23 more games a year with a pair of schools is enough to stick a whole new game somewhere else. Under their current contract they have the whole ESPN family of networks to put games on and that might change to include more (or fewer) slots in the next 6 or so years when the contract comes up again.

I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

FSU and Clemson to the SEC is a done deal, they're just waiting for a reduced financial penalty to pull the trigger. This has been obvious since the ACC lawsuits were settled.

(10-26-2025 12:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  Maybe there is limited value in expansion but what if the top 8 schools leave the SEC and top 8 schools leave the Big Ten to form a new Power-1 conference.

Then it might be handy for the SEC to have a good group of leftovers that could survive as a tier2 conference.

It would take more like 12 from the SEC, maybe 14. Easier to just invite any B1G refugees, if you guys can't work out your differences. Which, not saying that you won't ofc, in fact I'd be shocked if you didn't, but there's just no appetite for change within the SEC at the moment.

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 06:47 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  As the SEC continuously dominates at least two -- and sometimes all three -- time slots every Saturday, I'm curious where the upside is to expanding at all.

I don't think anyone expects ratings to get substantially higher -- at least not unless Notre Dame, Ohio State, or Michigan is involved, which of course nobody is talking about.

So where does the additional revenue come from expansion? Subscriber fees don't increase with FSU or Clemson. SEC Championship Game revenues don't increase with additional programs in the mix, so that revenue just gets split more ways.

Basketball media rights and NCAA Tournament Credits aren't valuable enough to justify the likes of UNC and Kansas who might risk the football media rights cash cow. Replace LSU vs. A&M from this past Saturday with LSU vs UNC and A&M vs. Kansas and see what happens to those TV ratings.

Some people like to talk about expansion simply to defend the Deep South from a Big Ten invasion, but that's just a game of Whack-A-Mole. Take Florida State and Clemson, the B1G adds Georgia Tech and North Carolina. Take those two as well and the B1G gets Duke and South Florida -- to say nothing of Miami.

With all of that in mind, I'm afraid it's going to be B1G or bust for Clemson and Florida State.

There are many, but I'll give you one that is rarely considered. I think the best ratio of traditional powers, and the rest of the conference comprised of teams that are good enough to beat the traditional powers, is 1:1. You need enough traditional powers to drive viewership and money during the years some of the traditional powers are having subpar years. Additionally, you need in any given year some of the non-traditional schools having better than average years and contending for playoff spots. This maximizes media value, and also makes it less likely that some of the traditional powers' value are permanently diminished.

But at the same time, you want every major traditional power/major brand football programs you can acquire, and you do not want any school that will not compete long-term in football for lack of sufficient finances or fanbase size and enthusiasm. All invitees much have at least very good academics, and an academic outlook that such academic status will at least be maintained or increased over time.

This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

Lastly, I will remind everyone that conference realignment at this time in history is being fueled solely by the extraordinary rise in value of college football. Nothing else. Basketball valuations are speculative, and even in such speculations basketball valuations are still dwarfed by football, both now and in any projected valuations of both sports. There is no speculative analysis of basketball, even if NCAA Tournament profits are syphoned to the P2, comes close to the projected valuations of college football. The future conference payouts will be closer to $200 million per school per year, not $100 million, in a few short years. And then more than that. The valuations of college football will be 60%+ of the NFL. Do the math yourself.

The SEC controlling the college football market from Virginia west to Mizzouri, south to Texas, and back east to Florida, secures the SEC's position as having the best grouping of college football programs in the country, while keeping its strength of being a regional conference.

I just spoke above about there being no desire in the SEC for change at the moment. However, bring in 8 from the ACC and that may very well alter the equation. Think about what an upheaval just adding OUT was. 8 is a huge change to the makeup and competitive balance of the entire Conference. More important, after the top few m2 schools, the rest are interchangeable. We add GT, UVA, VT and NC St? The B1G could just add the 4c. I'd give the B1G the win on that 4v4 matchup in fact, by quite a large margin. They could then add Texas Tech and Kansas to get to 24, and we'd have accomplished almost nothing with our move other than to weaken a conference that was never a threat to us in the first place. Alternatively, we snag 2 or 4, sit tight at 18-20, and then dare the B1G to do something, ANYTHING to respond, and they'll either sit tight and look weak or add a couple of 2nd tier M2 programs and lose out on the latest expansion round again, anyway.

The best argument against a huge round of additional expansion in the near future is that the value differential between the 5th and 18th best M2 program is quite small, certainly much smaller than the value differential between the 4th and 5th program.

I think that the only way we see a move of more than 4 schools is if ND decides to make a move. Not impossible, but seems quite unlikely right now, especially as ESPN, NBC, the M2 and the SEC all have very good reasons to passively or even actively support their decision to remain outside of the B1G.

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

We have people here who "know" things. Like JR, Matt Brown, several FBS ADs, McMurphy, etc etc. However, most are more like me, I don't claim to know squat, even about my Aggies, but I have really strong opinions on lots of topics that are wildly outside of my experience, and I am sometimes able to distance my brain from my fandom long enough to come up with an impartial opinion on a particular topic. It's the internet, after all.

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

(10-26-2025 04:07 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

We have people here who "know" things. Like JR, Matt Brown, several FBS ADs, McMurphy, etc etc. However, most are more like me, I don't claim to know squat, even about my Aggies, but I have really strong opinions on lots of topics that are wildly outside of my experience, and I am sometimes able to distance my brain from my fandom long enough to come up with an impartial opinion on a particular topic. It's the internet, after all.

Same.

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I remember when Clemson and FSU were announced to the SEC on the ESPN crawler in 2011, only to have it revoked a few days later. Other than that, nothing has been a done deal until it was.

As far as insider information goes, those who had access to the meetings were the presidents and those who handled the information for the presidents knew a little bit more but didn't talk to the press. In fact, the one thing you can bet the farm on is that until a deal is announced there is no information on it outside of that small circle of a prospective school's president and trustees (or whatever the nomenclature is for a trustee) and of course the presidents and commissioner of the conference involved and a couple of teams of attorneys. The last people to know anything will be the press, unless like with the Houston chronicle they find the open mouth of a rogue trustee.

It's a message board so the old adage about opinions being like bungholes is applicable. Everybody's got one and likely all of them stink. What I got from "insiders" was after the events were known to the public and was about the kinds of discussions and protocols followed in the selection process and the different strategies behind the selection of applicants. What was discussed from 1990 to 1991 for the additions of 1992 set the goals and parameters for what the SEC has followed since. I simply don't expect much deviation. Arkansas was selected and seen as a bridge to Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma, and South Carolina was selected after Clemson lost interest and was seen as a bridge to North Carolina.

The SEC landed Arkansas and South Carolina and that was enough for the CCG that Kramer used to grow the conference and its revenue. There were originally 6 targets, Arkansas (Broyles was helping immensely with the process), Texas, Texas A&M and a then silent partner for Texas (OU). Clemson and Florida State were the original targets to the East.

The operative question is whether the Missouri addition which was to activate a renegotiation clause in the contract in 2011 took the place of FSU and South Carolina which joined in 1992 took the place of Clemson. In 2011 it wasn't believed to be the case when Missouri joined and Mike Slive promised the then presidents of South Carolina and Florida, Pastides and Machen, that in the future there would be "no restrictions on nominating in state rivals" if the renegotiation clause calling for two new markets was honored in the 2011 proceedings. This was Slive's "gentlemen's agreement" the opposite of the crap that Travis reported. Slive stated that in the future only profitability would be required for membership. No doubt in 2021 Texas and Oklahoma as an addition was to be very profitable.

North Carolina was considered a long-term objective in 1991. That never changed. Indeed in 2011 when Maryland bolted the ACC North Carolina wanted to know if the ACC suffered further defections (they were then concerned about Virginia and Georgia Tech joining Maryland to head to the Big 10) would North Carolina and Duke have a place in the SEC. Slive allegedly said yes. When the OU/UT deal was announced the inquiry of 2011 was repeated.

So here we are again and I have no reason to believe that any of the priorities have changed. The motivation for changing conferences however has changed. When Texas and Oklahoma joined the SEC, it so impacted their future finances as to contribute to the destabilization that a year later prompted the Big Ten to move with your Trojans and their cross-town rivals UCLA, which prompted the collapse of the PAC 12 and the eventual half share entrance of Washington and Oregon. It was not lost on any of those schools that there were going to be two conferences emerging with significant advantages in revenue and more media exposure than any of the others. The lawsuits in the ACC were about survival, not merely a desire for better football. That they were backed by 5 other schools in expressing a desire for timely and more cost-effective means of departing was also not insignificant.

There will be more movement. It will happen because there are 4 to 8 schools in the ACC that might be able to swing such a move and very well could prove valuable for markets, product, or used to protect the revenue stream of the network, or a combination of those. When it happens, I will not be surprised if 2 of those headed to the SEC will be North Carolina and Duke. I'm told like you are by the bloggers and podcasters and by a few newspaper guys like Blake Toppmeyer from USA Today, that Virginia is desired. I have no reason to doubt it because of the market, but more importantly because of the things behind the desire of the SEC and Big Ten to expand. If Florida State is part of it this time around, and I believe they will be, it will be because of the importance of the Florida market for many reasons. What I don't see are the same kinds of factors helping Clemson. Normally they would be considered additive via scheduling games with other brands to maximize viewers, but their small market is duplicated for the SEC, and they don't meet Big Ten criteria. If expansion moves beyond 20, they could be in the mix. We'll see. I been posting on this board since 2012, and I had family involved in 1990-2 and they were in the loop in 2010-1.

In 1991 the SEC had a plan to go to 20 should the Big Ten raid the ACC. That plan was still operative in 2011. I have no reason to doubt that we have an amended one for today.

(10-26-2025 12:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  This analysis makes a good case for the SEC to take the Magnificent 7, plus GT. The SEC now has 9 traditional football powers and 7 schools that look like they can beat any other school on any given Saturday. Adding FSU, Miami and Clemson, plus the other 5 ACC brings the ratio to 1:1.

If this combination was as valuable as you think it is they'd be well advised to just break off on their own (add Louisville or Pitt solely to get an 8 team conference schedule) and reap the rewards. But the truth is that adding all of those schools doesn't get the lot up to SEC pro rata at all, it actively takes away value from the schools already in it and thus they won't vote for it. Or they'd snip off Miami (least valuable power) and one or two of the non-powers.) Going big "just because" isn't going to happen.

(10-26-2025 11:36 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  Wake Forest, Kansas State, Boston College, Houston, Iowa State, Syracuse, etc. aren't nearly as valuable as they're being treated.

If you remove Clemson, Florida State, Kansas, UNC, etc. from them, they lose significant allure.

I've long maintained if I were the SEC or the Big Ten, I'd take every remaining brand.

Expand the CFP to 24. 8 auto bids to the Big Ten, 8 to the SEC, 2 to the G8, and 6 at-larges.

Change the NCAA Tournament to pay based on locked in values like the CFP does so you know how much you'll get for adding UNC, Duke, KU, etc.

Remembering what JRsec said above and other nuggets I have come across in the past, I would not be so sure on Houston. For clarification, JRsec said nothing whatsoever about Houston, but I do remember any Houston fan telling me that they are working on having AAU membership, which is why I bring them up. If the Texas Tech administration had some foresight, IMO, they'd do the same. I honestly wish I knew more about Syracuse-specifically how much federal & state funding that they get since they do have that adjacent SUNY facility. That could tip the scales in the 'Cuse's favor, again, IMHO.

(10-26-2025 04:25 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 11:36 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  Wake Forest, Kansas State, Boston College, Houston, Iowa State, Syracuse, etc. aren't nearly as valuable as they're being treated.

If you remove Clemson, Florida State, Kansas, UNC, etc. from them, they lose significant allure.

I've long maintained if I were the SEC or the Big Ten, I'd take every remaining brand.

Expand the CFP to 24. 8 auto bids to the Big Ten, 8 to the SEC, 2 to the G8, and 6 at-larges.

Change the NCAA Tournament to pay based on locked in values like the CFP does so you know how much you'll get for adding UNC, Duke, KU, etc.

Remembering what JRsec said above and other nuggets I have come across in the past, I would not be so sure on Houston. For clarification, JRsec said nothing whatsoever about Houston, but I do remember any Houston fan telling me that they are working on having AAU membership, which is why I bring them up. If the Texas Tech administration had some foresight, IMO, they'd do the same. I honestly wish I knew more about Syracuse-specifically how much federal & state funding that they get since they do have that adjacent SUNY facility. That could tip the scales in the 'Cuse's favor, again, IMHO.

Syracuse is a private school, any public funding they get is tied to research grants. They're also in a very economically depressed area (upstate New York is comparable in decline to West Virginia,) and the school voluntarily withdrew from the AAU and announced that they weren't going to compete in top level research anymore. Their ship sailed fifteen years ago and unless they come up with a previously unknown super-donor thats not going to change any time soon.

(10-26-2025 04:18 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

(10-26-2025 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 04:18 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(10-26-2025 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I'm convinced half of the people here pretend like they have insider information. Remember when FSU and Clemson to the SEC was a done deal?

I don't think expansion is over but I do think people are unwilling to just admit we don't actually know. It's questionable if any ACC team not named UNC is actually going to bring additional revenue. The SEC isn't gaining many eyeballs by adding any of the southern teams. And a lot of the conversation on these teams reads like college football game or Thrones rather than plausible scenarios.

Hence why it hasn't happened.

I'm not sure even unc brings significantly more revenue, unlike when Roy(and K) were still coaching.

I don't think they bring in any net revenue per school. But if you think like a university president, you like UNC and Stanford. But ultimately, the networks told the Big Ten no on Stanford and California. UNC IMO would be a nice even number school. They bring market and basketball and balance an FSU or Clemson who brings football and football TV eyeballs.

Now the contrary position is that there are only so many valuable time slots and bringing in someone who is only a little better than average doesn't bring enough to pay for themselves as they aren't going to increase the number of televised games on ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN. They will simply make those games a little better. I think FSU, Clemson, Miami and, of course, Notre Dame, do increase overall value per school. But it is possible that they don't.

But with mediocre basketball, would unc still bring significant market? Kinda where they are now. That's my point. Nobody's gonna be paid for their history.