(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote: (11-06-2025 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote: When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland did they get two schools which were champions in anything? North Carolina and Duke are rated higher academically, and each has won championships in a revenue sport, and more recently than any of the Big Ten's basketball programs. Alabama vs Louisiana Monroe will be outdrawn by Alabama vs Virginia. Auburn vs Middle Tennessee will be outdrawn by Auburn vs North Carolina, and that doesn't even touch what Duke vs Kentucky and North Carolina vs Kentucky, or Virginia vs Kentucky will do nationally in basketball.
The only thing needed to keep the SEC's dynamic for football is improvements on the schedule for the buy games. When the Big Ten and SEC are playing only P games for 12 regular season games nobody will care if North Carolina, Duke or Virginia are on the schedule. Those tickets will start at the 75 dollar amount the same as any SEC game or P5 game, and the 55 dollar FCS and 65 dollar G5 tickets will be gone. Each school will make more more money and that is all that will matter.
I grew up in New Jersey, went to Villanova undergrad. I moved to Alabama for grad school and have been in SEC Country since.
Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).
Aside from possibly a jolt of cash coming from subscriber fees and the promises of great content for their media partners, the Big Ten is not better off with those additions. That jolt of cash will peter out soon enough and the SEC will get paid what it deserves for having a substantially more interesting, more watched product -- so why would the SEC make the same mistake the Big Ten made?
I was born in Alabama, have lived in or been to 47 of the 48 contiguous states, 3 provinces in Canada and have traveled in Europe and Middle East.
I went to Auburn and did my master's work at Emory.
I knew Harvey Schiller and Roy Kramer as well as Bear Bryant and C.M. Newton.
I've had family involved in the realignment process.
The SEC presidents will not be considering Rutgers or Maryland, or U.C.L.A. for that matter when they make their decisions, which are likely already made so that Sankey can act without delay if the opportunity arises.
They've had a defense of the region plan operative since 1991. Their long-term goal has always included to take North Carolina if the opportunity arose. Their original 6 targets were Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas's silent partner Oklahoma, Clemson and FSU. They've scored 4 of those. South Carolina took Clemson's slot. We'll have to see what FSU does. The Clemson attraction, and the South Carolina addition were to build a bridge to North Carolina so that with South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia the SEC would look more appealing.
Virginia Tech expressed interes in 1991 and at the time they were told the SEC wasn't considering additions that far away from its geographical center. With Kentucky and if North Carolina wants to join the SEC will go after Virginia whether any of us like them or not. When Maryland left for the Big Ten North Carolina approached Mike Slive and wanted to know if they would have a place in the SEC if further defections occured in the ACC. They had one request. They wanted Duke as their travel partner. They didn't mention Virginia because at the time they were in discussions with the Big Ten and they and Georgia Tech were the further defections they were concerned about.
I think the SEC would love to keep Virginia, North Carolina and Duke together. I would rather see the SEC add Florida State and Clemson to go along with North Carolina and Duke. I believe competitively that those 4 would give the SEC the two best basketball brands, all of the North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida market we would need to dominate our footprint, and I no longer see Virginia as being Southern. I see it as Beltway D.C. and not even as Big Ten in any significant way. Call me prejudiced but I see anything that develops around D.C. as alien to most of the rest of this country as far as cultural fit goes.
So you aren't arguing with my preferences. You are arguing about what I believe the SEC will want to do.
IMO, the strongest possible move for the SEC at 20 are Duke, North Carolina, FSU and Clemson. What I think the SEC will do is to add Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Florida State. Sankey and the presidents will see the basketball first trio as the academic upgrade the SEC has always desired, but with national caliber basketball, and they will think that those three will balance out what is a killer football depth providing the conference with P recognized games in conference against schools which will step up a bit in football, but likely won't challenge, and therefore become prettier wins than buy games. And they will see FSU as adding strength there.
No doubt Clemson is an SEC like school in almost every way. But unless one of those 4 decides to forego football (unlikely) or chooses to go elsewhere I think Clemson has to hope the SEC and Big Ten both move to 22.
Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech and Miami don't have the attendance or raw revenue numbers to make that jump to the SEC profitable for the SEC. They are fine programs with good football, but are not distinguished in any one area nor are any of them their state's flagship school. If the Big Ten wants one or more of them it doesn't impact the SEC's revenue numbers in terms of market dominance for those states. But I doubt other than possibly Miami that the Big Ten can make a buck with any of them.
Having the state flagship in a state like Virginia with the only AAU school there and the only school that would be acceptable to the Big Ten from that state is seen as both an offensive and defensive strategy fulfillment.
I don't think you are saying the SEC shouldn't take North Carolina, but if you are the same applies there only UNC is in a larger market and has a championship pedigree.
As to Duke they are top 5 academically, one of their big donors is Tim Cook, who went to Auburn for undergrad and Duke for his Masters. He donates in a big way to both schools and in each school to both academics and athletics. While not a major consideration of any kind it is a noteworthy one as far as connections go. If taking Duke secures North Carolina and Virginia you couldn't find a more beneficial sidekick to make that deal happen. That leaves FSU as the last no brainer for the taking of the majority, possibly super majority of the Florida market. And that sir is what the presidents have been looking at acquiring if the ACC looks to suffer defections.
The cheap and easy way to wrap this up is with UNC & FSU or Kansas and FSU as a pair, the latter being the way to finish if the ACC stays fundamentally together and the Noles leave. The former would be the least destructive way to raid the ACC taking the best basketball and best football products.
However, if the Big Ten adds a pair anywhere, the SEC will move to 20. That makes Virginia and Duke the likeliest targets for both what they bring in sports and revenue and as a defensive move to discourage a Big Ten presence in the Southeast. Remember, Miami, like Washington D.C. is a culture unto itself. I don't think the SEC would lose sleep over Miami heading to the Big Ten provided FSU was in our hands.
/
Where is the upside to SEC expansion?
