(08-19-2015 09:21 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think is silly to buy into the belief having only 1 school in 1 state is the best outcome. The whole reason people watch college sports is the rivalry and passion. See ALabama vs Auburn ratings.

I don't think that 1 or 2 schools in the same state is necessarily better. E.g., the SEC has two schools in Alabama and dominates that state, and it has 1 in places like Georgia and Louisiana and dominates those states too. The B1G has two schools in Michigan, one in Ohio, but dominates both as well.

(08-19-2015 08:22 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 03:35 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Pretty easy.

If those are all up for grabs you take UNC, Duke, VT and UVA and declare expansion done with.

For the price of only expanding by 4, you get 3 AAU schools, two bluest of the blue blood basketball schools and a good FB school. And by the way, you just added nearly 20 million more new people to your television footprint (otherwise known as "another Florida") and are now in every major traditional southern market and the dominant force in the southern US.

And with deregulation of CCG, conference size isn't much of an issue if you are guaranteed to play your rivals every year and then rotate quicker through everyone else.

Nobody else comes close to bringing that much new value to the SEC.

So NC/VA are most definitely prizes worth waiting for.

Personally, I don't disagree with three of those four. I'd replace VT with Clemson. But, we both ignore the western side of the candidate map, including three of the big remaining draws: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Two of the three come from states without many eyes, but the overall program quality of all three definitely lends itself to increased inventory, adding "meat" in national and regional fare.

That is the content vs market argument.

Right now, markets are still the number one priority because they are the biggest money maker. Adding 30 million new people to your footprint and the $$$ increase that comes from it is something that even the biggest "content" adds like FSU, UT and OU can't come close to offering.

Content adds will only be considered once either all market adds (in the SEC thats NC and VA) are either satisfied or given up on.

(08-19-2015 09:21 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think is silly to buy into the belief having only 1 school in 1 state is the best outcome. The whole reason people watch college sports is the rivalry and passion. See ALabama vs Auburn ratings. If the SEC wants to raid the ACC, jumping to 24 might be the best bet with 3 divisions of 8 that act as stand alone other than football. Thus, you get 1 leadership, 1 network. Same concept works for the big 10. Ideally the big 10 would jump to 40 and the SEC to 24 and those 2 are the big leagues in college sports that have title game among their football champs.

Have to disagree with you there.

Thats just adding more slices to the pie without increasing the pie's size enough.

Realignment slots have to be spent carefully and doubling down in states you already control results in a smaller and less profitable footprint.

Look at the Big 12. Many of it's woes stem from having too many redundant schools that don't deliver any additional market value.

(08-19-2015 09:37 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:21 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think is silly to buy into the belief having only 1 school in 1 state is the best outcome. The whole reason people watch college sports is the rivalry and passion. See ALabama vs Auburn ratings. If the SEC wants to raid the ACC, jumping to 24 might be the best bet with 3 divisions of 8 that act as stand alone other than football. Thus, you get 1 leadership, 1 network. Same concept works for the big 10. Ideally the big 10 would jump to 40 and the SEC to 24 and those 2 are the big leagues in college sports that have title game among their football champs.

Have to disagree with you there.

Thats just adding more slices to the pie without increasing the pie's size enough.

Realignment slots have to be spent carefully and doubling down in states you already control results in a smaller and less profitable footprint.

Look at the Big 12. Many of it's woes stem from having too many redundant schools that don't deliver any additional market value.

Big 12 is doubled up in 2 states and has 4 in 1 as well. Pac has 2 in 3 states and 4 in 1. So if it's bad for the Big 12 then it's bad for the PAC?

The Big 12's issue is that it's doubled up in low population states

The PAC's issue is that its doubled up in states that don't care about college sports

But thats why anybody looking to expand would be wise to NOT double up in an existing state and instead expand into a new territory.

I can't disagree with that ^.

At some point the schools with fans who are willing to pay to watch their team play will be worth more than those who are simply located near a population of people who are not interested in paying for college sports.

(08-19-2015 02:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Big 12's issue is that it's doubled up in low population states

Mississippi? Alabama? Tennessee?

(08-19-2015 02:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The PAC's issue is that its doubled up in states that don't care about college sports

Maybe Washington? Maybe?





The only states that'd meet both criteria, btw, are TX, NC, FL, GA, and OH. I may be missing somebody off the top of my head ... but I think that's got it.

My point is that those solitary data points are not deal breakers either way.

(08-19-2015 04:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 02:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The Big 12's issue is that it's doubled up in low population states

Mississippi? Alabama? Tennessee?

(08-19-2015 02:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The PAC's issue is that its doubled up in states that don't care about college sports

Maybe Washington? Maybe?





The only states that'd meet both criteria, btw, are TX, NC, FL, GA, and OH. I may be missing somebody off the top of my head ... but I think that's got it.

My point is that those solitary data points are not deal breakers either way.

Tennessee is 17th in the the nation for pop so its not actually a small state. Its a little bigger than Missouri's population.

But my original point still stands. Doubling up may have been an OK strategy back when "well we can only afford to fuel the bus so many times a month" was the main consideration in athletic conference development, but nowadays it makes zero sense (or cents) to do so.

According to Jeff Ermann of InsideMDSports.com:

"Big 10 talk buzzing again. #UVA being mentioned often as likely to join. Georgia Tech still in the mix. #UNC, the big domino, has an offer.
10:04 AM - 19 Feb 2013"

Or you could take the Big Ten Commissioner's word:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-expansion

(08-19-2015 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-16-2015 10:22 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten had its chance and got Maryland. Despite all the insiders proclamations of the end of The ACC, the best Delaney could do was Maryland. No UVa, no GaTech no Duke. Again if any of these schools would have wanted out of The ACC they wouldn't have signed The GOR.

First, we don't know if Delany tried to get anyone but Maryland. You assume Delany went 1-4 (tried to get MD, VA, Duke, GT) but struck out with three of them. For all we know he went 1-1, only tried to get Maryland and succeeded. Maryland was a WHALE of a prize for the B1G. A flagship located in the richest metropolitan area in the USA, and along with Rutgers puts the B1G in position to gain a large chunk of the enormously lucrative DC to NYC corridor.

Second, you make it seem like the B1G had a single window of opportunity and it has closed. But there's good reason to think not. First, the BTN continues to grow its revenue, second, the B1G is on the cusp of signing a new rights deal that will surely significantly boost that portion of its revenue.

IOW's, the B1G already makes a lot more money than the ACC, and is now poised to grow that advantage significantly. That boost in new money could very well be enough to tempt more ACC schools to run the legal risk of trying to break their GOR.

I'm not saying this will happen, but it is possible.

And this isn't a shot at the ACC. It goes without saying that the B1G money boom could also make it possible that Big 12 schools could be willing to exit for the B1G. I also don't think it totally outside the realm of possibility that a border-SEC school, like a Missouri or even Kentucky, might be tempted to leave the SEC. I really think that when the dust settles, the B1G is going to have a big money advantage over everyone, even over the SEC.

The money is going to look like this, at least until the late 2020s:

B1G ..> SEC ... > PAC, Big 12, ACC

Delany does not indicate whether the 3 other schools the B1G engaged in 'serious' discussions with about joining were ACC schools.

FWIW, and as an aside, I am pretty sure he didn't try to contact NC State. Despite what some think around here, NC State is worthless to the B1G or SEC, or at least their worth is far greater than their cost.

(08-19-2015 05:02 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  According to Jeff Ermann of InsideMDSports.com:

"Big 10 talk buzzing again. #UVA being mentioned often as likely to join. Georgia Tech still in the mix. #UNC, the big domino, has an offer.
10:04 AM - 19 Feb 2013"

Or you could take the Big Ten Commissioner's word:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-expansion

(08-19-2015 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-16-2015 10:22 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten had its chance and got Maryland. Despite all the insiders proclamations of the end of The ACC, the best Delaney could do was Maryland. No UVa, no GaTech no Duke. Again if any of these schools would have wanted out of The ACC they wouldn't have signed The GOR.

First, we don't know if Delany tried to get anyone but Maryland. You assume Delany went 1-4 (tried to get MD, VA, Duke, GT) but struck out with three of them. For all we know he went 1-1, only tried to get Maryland and succeeded. Maryland was a WHALE of a prize for the B1G. A flagship located in the richest metropolitan area in the USA, and along with Rutgers puts the B1G in position to gain a large chunk of the enormously lucrative DC to NYC corridor.

Second, you make it seem like the B1G had a single window of opportunity and it has closed. But there's good reason to think not. First, the BTN continues to grow its revenue, second, the B1G is on the cusp of signing a new rights deal that will surely significantly boost that portion of its revenue.

IOW's, the B1G already makes a lot more money than the ACC, and is now poised to grow that advantage significantly. That boost in new money could very well be enough to tempt more ACC schools to run the legal risk of trying to break their GOR.

I'm not saying this will happen, but it is possible.

And this isn't a shot at the ACC. It goes without saying that the B1G money boom could also make it possible that Big 12 schools could be willing to exit for the B1G. I also don't think it totally outside the realm of possibility that a border-SEC school, like a Missouri or even Kentucky, might be tempted to leave the SEC. I really think that when the dust settles, the B1G is going to have a big money advantage over everyone, even over the SEC.

The money is going to look like this, at least until the late 2020s:

B1G ..> SEC ... > PAC, Big 12, ACC

(08-19-2015 04:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But my original point still stands. Doubling up may have been an OK strategy back when "well we can only afford to fuel the bus so many times a month" was the main consideration in athletic conference development, but nowadays it makes zero sense (or cents) to do so.

Except that there seem to be many exceptions. Would it make sense for the SEC to add Texas if they could even though they already have TAMU? Would it be good for the B1G to add Notre Dame even though they already have Indiana and Purdue (tripling up!)?

If the Big 12 had the choice of adding Alabama alone or Alabama and Auburn, which would make them better off?

Ditto if the Big 12 could add USC, or USC and UCLA?

In all of those cases, doubling up is the obvious best move.

You can't think of brand appeal in strictly geographic terms. Duke and North Carolina are 8 miles apart but each provides massive national basketball brand power to the ACC, they aren't redundant in the least.

(08-21-2015 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But my original point still stands. Doubling up may have been an OK strategy back when "well we can only afford to fuel the bus so many times a month" was the main consideration in athletic conference development, but nowadays it makes zero sense (or cents) to do so.

Except that there seem to be many exceptions. Would it make sense for the SEC to add Texas if they could even though they already have TAMU? Would it be good for the B1G to add Notre Dame even though they already have Indiana and Purdue (tripling up!)?

If the Big 12 had the choice of adding Alabama alone or Alabama and Auburn, which would make them better off?

Ditto if the Big 12 could add USC, or USC and UCLA?

In all of those cases, doubling up is the obvious best move.

You can't think of brand appeal in strictly geographic terms. Duke and North Carolina are 8 miles apart but each provides massive national basketball brand power to the ACC, they aren't redundant in the least.

Right now Quo the SEC earns more than the Big 10 and our upside is delivered in 2017 when start up is paid up.

The market model is going to change to a content model relatively soon. Number of conference games, number of top brands playing other top brands, etc. will drive future pay boosts. We won't jump there but rather stroll leisurely to that point as each conference concession gets milked for revenue.

I don't rule out that markets will be sought, but they will be sought among schools whose brands also add value and content at least in some money sport. Therefore one cannot rule out Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or a Virginia school for the SEC. Kansas could be in the mix I suppose but I don't see them as much of a fit.

Nobody is a fan of Oklahoma State to the SEC with Oklahoma, but they have 1 thing going for them that nobody wants to admit is a factor. They were the 11th most profitable athletic department in the nation last year, nudging out Auburn and ahead of Florida State. The SEC with the addition of OU and OSU (and I wholeheartedly agree there are better options) would still net the SEC two top 12 athletic departments. We had 6 of the top 12 already. Those two give us 8. The only other school we could add that would do the same for us would be Texas, which of course was #1 or #2 depending upon the rating service last year.

North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia don't come close to bringing that kind of athletic earning power.

What Duke, U.N.C. and Virginia would bring is academic credibility (at least until U.N.C. gets nailed).

So my point is only this. Dismissing O.S.U. out of hand might seem reasonable on face value, but when you dig into the numbers you start to realize that as a fallback position it is not untenable.

OU and OSU fans are down with that. It's the OU academic types that are the problem.

OSU is profitable right now thanks to Boone Picken's oil money.

I'm sure he's leaving them a nice chunk of change in his will but that well is gonna go dry within 10 years.

I'm fine with adding either OSU or OU but adding both is an unnecessary waste.

(08-21-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But my original point still stands. Doubling up may have been an OK strategy back when "well we can only afford to fuel the bus so many times a month" was the main consideration in athletic conference development, but nowadays it makes zero sense (or cents) to do so.

Except that there seem to be many exceptions. Would it make sense for the SEC to add Texas if they could even though they already have TAMU? Would it be good for the B1G to add Notre Dame even though they already have Indiana and Purdue (tripling up!)?

If the Big 12 had the choice of adding Alabama alone or Alabama and Auburn, which would make them better off?

Ditto if the Big 12 could add USC, or USC and UCLA?

In all of those cases, doubling up is the obvious best move.

You can't think of brand appeal in strictly geographic terms. Duke and North Carolina are 8 miles apart but each provides massive national basketball brand power to the ACC, they aren't redundant in the least.

Right now Quo the SEC earns more than the Big 10 and our upside is delivered in 2017 when start up is paid up.

The market model is going to change to a content model relatively soon. Number of conference games, number of top brands playing other top brands, etc. will drive future pay boosts. We won't jump there but rather stroll leisurely to that point as each conference concession gets milked for revenue.

I don't rule out that markets will be sought, but they will be sought among schools whose brands also add value and content at least in some money sport. Therefore one cannot rule out Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or a Virginia school for the SEC. Kansas could be in the mix I suppose but I don't see them as much of a fit.

Nobody is a fan of Oklahoma State to the SEC with Oklahoma, but they have 1 thing going for them that nobody wants to admit is a factor. They were the 11th most profitable athletic department in the nation last year, nudging out Auburn and ahead of Florida State. The SEC with the addition of OU and OSU (and I wholeheartedly agree there are better options) would still net the SEC two top 12 athletic departments. We had 6 of the top 12 already. Those two give us 8. The only other school we could add that would do the same for us would be Texas, which of course was #1 or #2 depending upon the rating service last year.

North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia don't come close to bringing that kind of athletic earning power.

What Duke, U.N.C. and Virginia would bring is academic credibility (at least until U.N.C. gets nailed).

So my point is only this. Dismissing O.S.U. out of hand might seem reasonable on face value, but when you dig into the numbers you start to realize that as a fallback position it is not untenable.

I fail to see how an athletic department's profitability has anything to do with their value to the SEC or any other conference. That's an internal matter for the school.

Oklahoma State simply does not have the brand appeal to be worth cutting in on all those SECN dollars that you note will really start flowing in 2017.

Also, Duke and UNC bring a LOT more than academic credibility (OK, LOL about UNC but long-term). They are MASSIVE basketball brand names, two of the five biggest, and their athletic programs are well-known across the country. They are also flagships (or in Duke's case, flagship equivalent as a private).

Duke and UNC are slam-dunks for the SEC or anyone else. They are the biggest names in the ACC. They are the complete package, national brand names, flagships, strong academics.

Virginia is also an obvious plus for the SEC. A flagship in the South, excellent academics, venerable basketball tradition, and their football would be boosted dramatically playing SEC teams, and they put the SEC in the lucrative Washington DC area.

Oklahoma State? NC State? The SEC would be taking a big step back if it invited them.

I think the issue is what does OU want and not what the SEC wants. IF OU tells the SEC we will move into the SEC with Ok state as team 16, than the SEC would be very foolish to not accept OU + ok state combo. IF OU doesn't care about Ok state, doubtful, than sure the SEC would be better off taking OU alone. Let's say the SEC passes on OU and OK state combo only to watch OU and KU join the big 10. Than that set's up the possibility of Texas and Missouri joining the big 10 down the road. If the big 10 got those 4 school's, its pretty much game over for the other leagues…the big 10 would be the dominate force in college athletics.

(08-22-2015 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But my original point still stands. Doubling up may have been an OK strategy back when "well we can only afford to fuel the bus so many times a month" was the main consideration in athletic conference development, but nowadays it makes zero sense (or cents) to do so.

Except that there seem to be many exceptions. Would it make sense for the SEC to add Texas if they could even though they already have TAMU? Would it be good for the B1G to add Notre Dame even though they already have Indiana and Purdue (tripling up!)?

If the Big 12 had the choice of adding Alabama alone or Alabama and Auburn, which would make them better off?

Ditto if the Big 12 could add USC, or USC and UCLA?

In all of those cases, doubling up is the obvious best move.

You can't think of brand appeal in strictly geographic terms. Duke and North Carolina are 8 miles apart but each provides massive national basketball brand power to the ACC, they aren't redundant in the least.

Right now Quo the SEC earns more than the Big 10 and our upside is delivered in 2017 when start up is paid up.

The market model is going to change to a content model relatively soon. Number of conference games, number of top brands playing other top brands, etc. will drive future pay boosts. We won't jump there but rather stroll leisurely to that point as each conference concession gets milked for revenue.

I don't rule out that markets will be sought, but they will be sought among schools whose brands also add value and content at least in some money sport. Therefore one cannot rule out Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or a Virginia school for the SEC. Kansas could be in the mix I suppose but I don't see them as much of a fit.

Nobody is a fan of Oklahoma State to the SEC with Oklahoma, but they have 1 thing going for them that nobody wants to admit is a factor. They were the 11th most profitable athletic department in the nation last year, nudging out Auburn and ahead of Florida State. The SEC with the addition of OU and OSU (and I wholeheartedly agree there are better options) would still net the SEC two top 12 athletic departments. We had 6 of the top 12 already. Those two give us 8. The only other school we could add that would do the same for us would be Texas, which of course was #1 or #2 depending upon the rating service last year.

North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia don't come close to bringing that kind of athletic earning power.

What Duke, U.N.C. and Virginia would bring is academic credibility (at least until U.N.C. gets nailed).

So my point is only this. Dismissing O.S.U. out of hand might seem reasonable on face value, but when you dig into the numbers you start to realize that as a fallback position it is not untenable.

I fail to see how an athletic department's profitability has anything to do with their value to the SEC or any other conference. That's an internal matter for the school.

Oklahoma State simply does not have the brand appeal to be worth cutting in on all those SECN dollars that you note will really start flowing in 2017.

Also, Duke and UNC bring a LOT more than academic credibility (OK, LOL about UNC but long-term). They are MASSIVE basketball brand names, two of the five biggest, and their athletic programs are well-known across the country. They are also flagships (or in Duke's case, flagship equivalent as a private).

Duke and UNC are slam-dunks for the SEC or anyone else. They are the biggest names in the ACC. They are the complete package, national brand names, flagships, strong academics.

Virginia is also an obvious plus for the SEC. A flagship in the South, excellent academics, venerable basketball tradition, and their football would be boosted dramatically playing SEC teams, and they put the SEC in the lucrative Washington DC area.

Oklahoma State? NC State? The SEC would be taking a big step back if it invited them.

But there's a big difference between "asking" and "getting". Frankly, I'm not that sure the SEC does a lot of asking. They may signal an openness to somebody else's advances, but I doubt they make the first move.

If the SEC were to decide that they want to either be bigger, or be in NC and/or Virginia, or both, they have ways of making that known. I think the general consensus is that some of their potential targets would never make the first move unless they thought their existing world was about to collapse around them. Whether you think that schools like UNC, Virginia and Duke would reject the SEC for cultural or academic reasons, the reality is that they would probably always have a choice by looking to the Big Ten.

That's not nearly so likely in NC State's case, and maybe to a lesser degree in Va Tech's. If the SEC were convinced that UNC et al were not ever going to ask for an invitation, I think they could be open to expanding with both State and Va Tech before looking westward. The SEC doesn't need any more strength in football. They need more new eyeballs, and those two schools provide a lot more of those than two Big 12 teams would, given that they already have A&M in the fold.

For me, the only questions are would State and Tech ever make the first move, and what would be their motive for doing so? They have a nice regional fit and schedules they are happy with for now. I think their only trigger would be if those two things were being threatened by potential ACC offers to Big 12 members. If realignment were likely to stick them in a primarily northern division of the ACC, the SEC East could begin to look very attractive as an alternative. Especially if they (rightly, IMO) assumed or were assured that they could continue as OOC rivals of UNC and UVa going forward.

In short, I don't think it's out of the question that they would be willing to leave or that the SEC would be willing to have them.

(08-22-2015 10:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I think the issue is what does OU want and not what the SEC wants. IF OU tells the SEC we will move into the SEC with Ok state as team 16, than the SEC would be very foolish to not accept OU + ok state combo. IF OU doesn't care about Ok state, doubtful, than sure the SEC would be better off taking OU alone.

The SEC is fine without OU, but obviously OU would be a great addition to the SEC. OK State? Not nearly so much.

On balance, an OU + OSU package is a good deal for the SEC, but if they can possibly get OU without OSU, that is obviously preferable.

(08-22-2015 10:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-22-2015 09:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 03:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-21-2015 02:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 04:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  But my original point still stands. Doubling up may have been an OK strategy back when "well we can only afford to fuel the bus so many times a month" was the main consideration in athletic conference development, but nowadays it makes zero sense (or cents) to do so.

Except that there seem to be many exceptions. Would it make sense for the SEC to add Texas if they could even though they already have TAMU? Would it be good for the B1G to add Notre Dame even though they already have Indiana and Purdue (tripling up!)?

If the Big 12 had the choice of adding Alabama alone or Alabama and Auburn, which would make them better off?

Ditto if the Big 12 could add USC, or USC and UCLA?

In all of those cases, doubling up is the obvious best move.

You can't think of brand appeal in strictly geographic terms. Duke and North Carolina are 8 miles apart but each provides massive national basketball brand power to the ACC, they aren't redundant in the least.

Right now Quo the SEC earns more than the Big 10 and our upside is delivered in 2017 when start up is paid up.

The market model is going to change to a content model relatively soon. Number of conference games, number of top brands playing other top brands, etc. will drive future pay boosts. We won't jump there but rather stroll leisurely to that point as each conference concession gets milked for revenue.

I don't rule out that markets will be sought, but they will be sought among schools whose brands also add value and content at least in some money sport. Therefore one cannot rule out Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or a Virginia school for the SEC. Kansas could be in the mix I suppose but I don't see them as much of a fit.

Nobody is a fan of Oklahoma State to the SEC with Oklahoma, but they have 1 thing going for them that nobody wants to admit is a factor. They were the 11th most profitable athletic department in the nation last year, nudging out Auburn and ahead of Florida State. The SEC with the addition of OU and OSU (and I wholeheartedly agree there are better options) would still net the SEC two top 12 athletic departments. We had 6 of the top 12 already. Those two give us 8. The only other school we could add that would do the same for us would be Texas, which of course was #1 or #2 depending upon the rating service last year.

North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia don't come close to bringing that kind of athletic earning power.

What Duke, U.N.C. and Virginia would bring is academic credibility (at least until U.N.C. gets nailed).

So my point is only this. Dismissing O.S.U. out of hand might seem reasonable on face value, but when you dig into the numbers you start to realize that as a fallback position it is not untenable.

I fail to see how an athletic department's profitability has anything to do with their value to the SEC or any other conference. That's an internal matter for the school.

Oklahoma State simply does not have the brand appeal to be worth cutting in on all those SECN dollars that you note will really start flowing in 2017.

Also, Duke and UNC bring a LOT more than academic credibility (OK, LOL about UNC but long-term). They are MASSIVE basketball brand names, two of the five biggest, and their athletic programs are well-known across the country. They are also flagships (or in Duke's case, flagship equivalent as a private).

Duke and UNC are slam-dunks for the SEC or anyone else. They are the biggest names in the ACC. They are the complete package, national brand names, flagships, strong academics.

Virginia is also an obvious plus for the SEC. A flagship in the South, excellent academics, venerable basketball tradition, and their football would be boosted dramatically playing SEC teams, and they put the SEC in the lucrative Washington DC area.

Oklahoma State? NC State? The SEC would be taking a big step back if it invited them.

But there's a big difference between "asking" and "getting". Frankly, I'm not that sure the SEC does a lot of asking. They may signal an openness to somebody else's advances, but I doubt they make the first move.

If the SEC were to decide that they want to either be bigger, or be in NC and/or Virginia, or both, they have ways of making that known. I think the general consensus is that some of their potential targets would never make the first move unless they thought their existing world was about to collapse around them. Whether you think that schools like UNC, Virginia and Duke would reject the SEC for cultural or academic reasons, the reality is that they would probably always have a choice by looking to the Big Ten.

That's not nearly so likely in NC State's case, and maybe to a lesser degree in Va Tech's. If the SEC were convinced that UNC et al were not ever going to ask for an invitation, I think they could be open to expanding with both State and Va Tech before looking westward. The SEC doesn't need any more strength in football. They need more new eyeballs, and those two schools provide a lot more of those than two Big 12 teams would, given that they already have A&M in the fold.

For me, the only questions are would State and Tech ever make the first move, and what would be their motive for doing so? They have a nice regional fit and schedules they are happy with for now. I think their only trigger would be if those two things were being threatened by potential ACC offers to Big 12 members. If realignment were likely to stick them in a primarily northern division of the ACC, the SEC East could begin to look very attractive as an alternative. Especially if they (rightly, IMO) assumed or were assured that they could continue as OOC rivals of UNC and UVa going forward.

In short, I don't think it's out of the question that they would be willing to leave or that the SEC would be willing to have them.

No question, UNC, Duke, and UVA would always have multiple P5 options should the ACC collapse.

But even if those schools reject the SEC for the B1G, I don't think the SEC turns to VT or NCST. They don't really need eyeballs, and those schools wouldn't, IMHO, provide many anyway.

NC State is a lot like Rutgers - not very good at athletics, but located in a desirable expansion location.

Texas A&M really blossomed when it left the Texas-based Big 12. I wonder if an SEC membership could do the same for NC State.